December 7&14, 2009
- New War Surtax Planned
- Paul Scrambles to Ensure Weakened Fed Audit Bill Has Teeth
- It's All AIPAC of Lies
- How A Rich Drug Company Took Down A City
- Montana Finds Way Around Fed Gun Laws
- Silver Pushes Steadily Up as Dollar Continues Decline
- U.S. Helpless Against Chinese Cyber Spies
- Congressional Platter Full for 2009
- Fed Fearful of Audit
- Oregon Defense Attorney Strangled
- Free Trade: The Great Destroyer
Whole Body Health
- 250,00 A Year: The Censored U.S. Holocaust
- The Cancer Scam: Real, Hard Science lackingIn Mainstream Treatments
- Canadian Journalist Warned of Fluoridation Dangers
- Certain Canned Foods Contain High Levels of BPA Chemical Toxin
December 21, 2009
- Huge National Debt Set to Outpace Total U.S. Gross Domestic Product
- Powerful Israel Lobby Has Death Grip On U.S. Politics, Elections, Policies
- Are Feds Trying to Get Rid of IRS Agent-Turned-Tax Protester?
- Felon Who Says Obama is ‘Gay' Will Run for Congress in Florida
- ‘Declaration of Christian Conscience' Has More Than 260,000 Signatories
- Who Wants War? by Ron Paul
- Database of Gunowners Posted on ‘Net'
December 28, 2009
- Jim Traficant: Can He Unify Third Parties?
- A Video by Coalition on Political Assassinations
- The Power Behind Sarah Palin
- Former Minnesota Governor Reveals 9-11 Black Box Mystery
- Russians Allege Obama Is Preparing for Domestic Revolt in 2010
- House Passes ‘Audit the Fed' Measure Without Aid of Any Republican Votes
- Congress Can Bring Troops Home if Obama Won't
- Bilderberg Successes Equal Danger for U.S.
- Sources Admit bin Laden Long Dead
- How AIPAC Corrupts U.S. Politicians for Israel
- Congress Has Means to Stop ‘Death Spiral' of U.S. Dollar by Ron Paul
After campaigning on peace platform, president decides war is the way—and guess who's going to pay for it.
THE POPULIST VIEW about working class Americans being forced to pay the bills and bleed in the wars rings true today.With the country fighting two costly, unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats in the White House and Congress are debating how many more Americans to send into battle and just who is going to pay for it all.
In contrasting legislation, legislators are proposing increasing the cannon fodder in Afghanistan. At the same time, senior House Democrats want to impose a new tax on Americans to pay for the rising cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The House is expected to take up the issue of the White House plan to send more American soldiers to Afghanistan. But in a strange twist, the Democrat Party remains deeply divided over the issue so the White House is using support among Republicans to muscle through its agenda.
Despite Barack Obama's campaign pledges not to escalate the two wars, Obama appears to be in the clutches of the military-industrial-banking complex. But populists in the Democrat Party are pushing hard to end the war and bring the troops home. As a result, the White House has had to turn to the neoconservative wing of both parties to push through support and funding for sending tens of thousands more Americans into that no win war.
In mid November, Democrat Rep. David R. Obey (Wisc.), the current chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, along with Democrat Reps. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and John B. Larson (Conn.), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, unveiled the measure which creates a new "surtax," or an extra tax on income, that the president will be able to set annually so that it pays for the previous year's war costs.
"The president is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for.We believe that's wrong," the three congressmen said in a joint statement.
"The only people who've paid any price for our military
involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families. We believe that
if this war is to be fought, it's only fair that everyone share
the burden."
It's laudable that some in Congress recognize the insane costs
in men and treasure associated with these two unnecessary wars.
But the suggestion that tax increases will help anyone but the
banks and the weapons makers would be laughable were it not so
deadly serious. Much as it is false to suggest that a draft would
force the wealthiest of Americans to send their own sons and
daughters into battle, it is misguided to say that increasing
taxes will "share the burden" across the spectrum of
wealth in this country.
By definition, surtaxes disproportionately hurt small businesses and average Americans, because large multinational corporations and the elites—the loudest cheerleaders for wars—will always use their money and power to figure out how to game the system and avoid paying the bills or bleeding in the wars.
A far better solution to end these needless costs and the bloodshed would be to exit Iraq and Afghanistan and leave the cleanup to leaders in Iran and Pakistan, who have a vested and legitimate interest in providing stability in that part of the world.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
AFP heard at the November 22 End-the-Fed rally in Dallas that HR 1207, the House bill to audit the Federal Reserve System, had been voted out of committee, but that did not really happen. However, the House Financial Services Committee voted 43-26 to pass an amendment to a financial regulatory reform bill—an amendment that calls for an audit similar to the way that HR 1207 does.
This approved amendment, from congressmen Ron Paul and Alan Grayson, beat an effort by North Carolina Rep. Mel Watt—who represents a major banking center in Charlotte—to offer his own amendment that would have made the Fed audit more difficult, a press staffer for Rep. Paul told AFP on Dec. 1.
"Financial Services leadership has seemed determined . . . that if an audit of the Fed were to get out of committee, it should be attached to an overall regulatory reform package that would actually increase the powers of the Fed," cautioned a posting at the Campaign for Liberty (CFL) website, a grassroots outfit founded by Rep. Paul in 2008, when the first End-the-Fed rallies were held and a bill to dissolve the Fed, HR 2755, was floated but died for lack of support.
The Paul-Grayson amendment gives the Government Accountability Office power to audit the Fed's "entire $2 trillion balance sheet," claims the CFL, replacing Watt's language that would have further restricted GAO audits of the Fed.
The Paul-Grayson amendment says the audit "shall not include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors or of the Federal Open Market Committee," which staunch Fed opponents may see as too soft of an approach. The amendment language says that any audit aspect that deals with such "market actions" shall require the release of these transcripts only after 180 days have passed.
The key amendment wording is: "An audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed within 12 months of the enactment of the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 [HR 3996]," and that a report on the audit "shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available" to all relevant House and Senate leaders and any legislator who requests a copy.
CFL sees Rep. Watt as trying to gut HR 1207. "While this is a victory over an attempted hijacking of our cause, the audit authority is still being rolled into the Financial Stability Improvement Act, a bill that Campaign for Liberty will oppose," CFL's online posting also says, pointing to the irony of the situation.
Paul's press spokesperson told AFP that Paul himself expects to vote against the very regulatory act into which the Paul-Grayson amendment was inserted, and that he inserted it so "a very dark cloud will have a silver lining" if the bill passes despite his opposition. The timetable for HR 3996 is hard to predict as Christmas nears. "That's up to the committee chairman, Mr. Frank," Paul's press staffer said.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the deputy editor for American Free Press. Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events they cover for AFP. Mark welcomes your comments and input as well as story leads. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
American Israel Public Affairs Committee—AIPAC. The single most powerful lobby in the world. So powerful that Washington politicians carefully weigh each and every vote they cast based on the approval of this lobby.
Yes, a foreign lobby has that much clout, power and control over American leaders and thus, the American people. AIPAC has become so overpowering that they have risen above government investigations and mainstream media scrutiny. So powerful that the following statement was NEVER reported in America's newspapers, magazines, or electronic media:
"Every time we do something you tell me that America will do this and America will do that. I want to tell you something very clear; don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
You may think that maybe that statement was made by an overzealous Jewish American—or—an Israeli comedian—or—an Israeli talk show host. Maybe. Just maybe! No, that was no comment made at an Israeli barbershop or an Israeli wedding—no maybes about it! That comment was made by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. Yes, the prime minister of Israel! The head of state—Israel's leader.
Think about it. You may not have even heard this statement or read about it were it not for AFP. In fact, this may be the very first time you've come to learn of this statement—December 2009.
The power of AIPAC is so evident that the mainstream media of the USA hid it from your eyes and ears. Yes, you should be upset—really mad—because that statement was made October 3, 2001—more than 8 years ago. Eight years ago you didn't even know that a foreign leader announced, on an Israeli radio show no less, that "We, the Jewish people, control America."
And it didn't stop there—consider the far-reaching ramifications of the remainder of that statement: "And the Americans know it."
What Americans? Do you know it? Do your neighbors know it? Who are these Americans who know it?
Lets get to the point. Every politician in Washington D.C. knows it and has never uttered a word about it, NEVER even a whisper.
I opened up a can of worms in my September appearance on the Greta Van Susteren show, Fox TV Network. I said: "Israel has a stranglehold on America. Their lobby AIPAC has pushed and manipulated America into wars of little or no interest to our national security. . . . Our sons and daughters are being shipped home in body bags. These wars have now bankrupted America and no one—no one—has even whispered a warning from our nation's capital." I further stated: "Our one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast favoring Israel on every issue has turned the Arab world against us and has exported to America the terrorism, violence and danger resulting from these misguided policies."
I was called a "kook"—demeaned by the mainstream media—labeled an anti-Semite—on and on. The reason is quite clear. No one can even question Israel without being targeted, without retaliation.
"We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans; know it." (Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.) I'm no anti-Semite—and Israel knows it. Israel also knows that I vehemently oppose any person, entity or government that attempts to control, manipulate, influence or gerrymander our great nation. Truth is, Israel has done just that.
When a foreign leader such as Ariel Sharon can make such a statement, and get away with it without media or government scrutiny, it speaks to the awesome power that Israel wields over America's commerce, the American press and the American government.
Transparency? The new buzzword! Who's kidding whom? American politicians dare not even whisper their concerns about Israel.
It has come to pass. Yes, American kids are being shipped home in body bags to grieving parents who have lost their jobs and pensions due to these "Israeli wars."
That's right, "ISRAELI WARS."Wars of expansion for Israel, at the expense and pain of the people of the USA. "BEAM ME UP!"
Our first president, George Washington, warned:
"Beware of permanent alliances." George Washington is rolling over in his grave. GW could never have imagined an America being controlled and manipulated by another government."
If Sharon's statement had been made by any other foreign leader, it would have been headlines in every newspaper in America. It would have been the hot subject of every American talk show, radio and TV. But not Israel. No talk show host, whether conservative or liberal will ever question Israel. If they do, they will lose their show. Beware, American politicians, or you, too, will become a target.
James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a well-known football star. He also received a M.S. degree from Youngstown State University in 1976. For ten years he served as executive director of the Mahoning County (Ohio) Drug Program and from 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, he was expelled from the House of Representatives. Despite his conviction and expulsion and being sent to prison for a seven year term Traficant still won 15% of the vote running for re-election to the House in the 2002 election as an independent. He recently completed a seven-year prison sentence, having refused to seek a pardon or clemency, refusing to admit to or apologize for crimes he did not commit. Donations of support may be sent to Mrs.Tish Traficant, 429 Main Street, Poland, OH 44514. Michael Collins Piper's book Target Traficant is available from AFP for $25, including S & H.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
On February 22, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs. the City of New London that it is permissible for municipalities to seize privately owned property under the auspices of eminent domain if it is for "the common good."
In this instance, the confiscated property represented an act of corporate welfare for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (the maker of Viagra), while an entire neighborhood of low - and middle-class residents lost their homes. The Wall Street Journal called this ruling "one of the worst in recent years.
But now, something even more appalling has occurred. Not only did Pfizer never develop the confiscated land after bulldozing dozens of houses, they also plan on shutting down their administrative offices in New London, Conn, after merging with drug-giant Wyeth. Now New London is faced with a vacant $220 million building, the loss of 1,400 jobs, and a demolished plot of land where tax-paying citizens formerly lived. Fera cats broken glass, weeds and trash now overrun the vacant eyesore.
Evicted homeowner Michael Cristofaro described the aftermath: "There's nothing here. It's clear-cut. It's a dust bowl that was a 10-year battle. We could still be paying taxes. What does the city have now? They have nothing."
Attorney Scott bullock of Washington's Institute for Justice litigated this case from local courtrooms to the Supreme court. Representing Susette Kelo and other nomeowners, he told this writer in a November 18 interview, "This is a stark example which manifests the folly of using corporate welfare and eminent domain."
Originally, Connecticut Gov. John Rowland lured Pfizer into the area with an assortment of perks. Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner described the package: "Politicians picked a 24-acre lit and sold it to Pfizer for $10, adding on special tax breaks. Also, state and local governments promised $26 million for clean-up.
But this arrangement still didn't satisfy executive David Burnett, who told the Hartford Courant in 2001. "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate. We don't want to be surrounded by tenements. "Tenements" to which he referred was actually the middle-class neighborhood of Fort Trumbull That he eventually had leveled.
To facilitate this "economic redevelopment," Rowland (who resigned July 1, 2004 under a cloud of bribery, corruption and tax evasion charges) created the ew London Development Commission (NLDC) to, as Bullock asserts, bypass city council members. NLDC President Claire Gaudiani also happened to be the wife of Pfizer executive David Burnett, who likewise disliked "riffraft."
In a review of Jeff Benedict's book on this subject Viagra vs. the Little People, Stephen Miller points out that "born social climber" Claire Gaudiani's primary task involved "deflecting any criticism directed at the dity or the governor." As a result, her NLDC erased each and every property adjacent to Pfizer ... except one. Bureaucrats allowed the Italian Dramatic Club to remain.
Why was this single entity permitted to stay? Attorney Bullock characterized it as a "very popular male-only social club for influential power brokers, legislators, and congressmen." In a November 10 article, Tom Blumer of Monetary Matters said, "Among the Italian Dramatic Club's patrons was former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who helped direct much of the state's funding for the NLDC's work in New London."
In a November 18 interview, Groton Mayor Dennis L. Popp told this writer ho New London residents feel betrayed. "I understand their bitterness. They have several acres of barren land that's been undeveloped for 8-10 years. They were also counting on Pfizer to bring in ancillary businesses such as hotels and biotech companies. But now they have nothing. Plus, they're losing $450,000 in property taxes." As the Wall Street Journal reported on November 11, "The state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other ‘desirable' elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant."
Scott Bullock concluded: "Government should not get involved
in speculative and risky real estate ventures that include massive
risk. That's the last thing taxpayers should be on the book for."
|Top|
Montana Gov. Brian Shweitzer signed a revolutionary law on
April 15, 2009. H.B. 246 declares that all firearms, firearm
accessories and ammunition that were manufactured from basic
materials within Montana are "not subject to federal law
or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority
of Congress to regulate interstate commerce." Generic and
insignificant parts that have other uses, and basic materials
such as unmachined steel that are imported into Montana are not
subject to regulation. Now, Montana essentially has the right
to arm itself regardless of gun ban laws that Congress may pass.
Many see the move as the most direct challenge to federal authority
since South carolina seceded in 1861.
|Top|
In the past several weeks all eyes have been on gold's rapid rise in value, as the precious metal continues to shoot to new highs. But another precious metal, silver, is showing great promise as one of the safest and most affordable investments out there as a hedge against the falling dollar.
As of now, silver sands at just over $19 an ounce. In the past year alone, it has nearly doubled in value from a low in December 2008 of just under $10 to where it is now flirting with $20 an ounce.
So what makes silver such a good place to park your money? It's not just because silver - unlike gold - is a valuable commosity that can be used for everything from plumbing to manufacturing to photography to medicine. In the investment world, two words dominate talk of silver: short sales.
Short selling is a technique used by speculators to turn a profit on the falling price of a stock or commodity. An investor, who believes that shares in a company are overvalued, can short sell those shares for a handy profit without ever having to front the money to purchase them. What he does is ask his broker to borrow shares from someone who owns them with the promise that he will give them all back in the future at the current value. The broker then sells those shares at the market price. If the price of the shares drop, according to plan, he can buy them back at a cheaper rate and turn a tidy profit. But the problem is, if he's wrong and the price of the shares goes up, his losses can mount rapidly. At some point, no matter what, the investor will have to make due on his promise to return the shares. So he may have buy them back at a higher price at a significant loss. If he waits to long, his exposure increases, leaving him with even greater losses. For this reason, short sales have long been considered high risk and have been highly regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, in July 2007, just before the price of commodities went through the roof, the SEC relaxed the rules on short sales, which allowed big firms to step in and manipulate markets, especially the commodity exchange, for their profit.
And what this means for silver, says respected silver analyst Ted butler, is that huge quantities of silver shorts held by some of the largest Wall Street firms have been keeping the price artificially low for years now.
For example, explains Butler, when JPMorgan took over the failed Bear Stearns, it inherited Stearn's vast holdings of silver shorts. Since that time Morgan has been manipulating the commodity exchange to keep the price down while it brings in the profits.
"The dramatic increase inJPMorgan's short position ... dispels any notion that they are not controlling the price of silver," says Butler. "Without that short selling, the price would have been much higher."
In a nutshell, these Wall Street firms have been forcing the price down to reap profits.
"You can't have any trading market, where one (or two) participant controls 40 percent of that market and pretend that is a free market," says Butler "With that level of control, manipulation is the ... conclusion."
But the pressure is on now due to the falling value of the dollar and as more investors look for a safe place to park their money. Wall Street will not be able to hold the market down forever. It's a ticking time bomb that is set to go off at any time, says Butler, and anyone with silver holdings are the ones who will benefit.
"When the silver market blows up, it won't be the end
of the world financially," concludes Butler. "It will
be a big deal for me and silver investors, but not for the world
as a whole. That's because the silver market is so small. The
amount of money that would be lost by the big shorts on a sharp
silver price move won't be catastrophic in systemic risk terms.
If JPMorgan closed out it entire short position of 190 million
ounces ... it would sustain a loss of less than $4 billion....
That's about what JPMorgan earned in the last quarter.
|Top|
Before his state visit to Beijing last month, President Obama would have been briefed on the increasing threat posed by China's military hackers and spying agencies. He would have learned that in a six-month period the U.S. military alone spent over $100 million dealing with cyber attacks to its networks. And he would have been told that China presents the greatest espionage threat to the United States since the end of the Cold War.
The president mentioned none of those critical issues during his many photo opportunities in Beijing, yet they would have represented a mere fraction of what he must have known about the growing Chinese intelligence menace.
There can be little doubt he was given an advance copy of the U.S.-China Economic, Security and Review Commission report, which warns that China's intelligence gathering against the U.S. has grown in "intensity, scale and sophistication," in tandem with a frightening increase in Chinese hacker intrusions into U.S. government and defense computer networks. According to the commission report, such cyber attacks have the potential to destroy critical infrastructure, disrupt commerce and banking systems and compromise highly classified defense and military data.
An example of the potency of the Chinese cyber threat was the2008 hacking of computers holding sensitive information about the U.S. military's most advanced fighter, the F-35 Lightning II. In that operation, Chinese hackers extracted massive quantities of files about the new fighter. The U.S.-China commission estimates that, by the end of 2009, critical U.S. computer networks will have seen a 60 percent increase in cyber attacks emanating from China.
But cyber espionage is not China's only threat to the U.S. The president would have been shown classified intelligence reports on the growing number of spying operations on U.S. soil, as well as the changing character of China's human intelligence gathering techniques. China's foeign intelligence strategby is conducted by two main bodies with various offshoots, namely the Military Intelligence Department of the People's Liberation Army and the Ministry of State Security. Their main goal is to steal U.S. technology secrets and identify weaknesses within the U.S. security apparatus. They have taken a leaf out of Israel's espionage history by recruiting sleeper agents they intend to activate in years, if not decades from now. Those agents will be naturalized Americans working hin hi-tech industries, or in the defense sector.
Both of China's main foreign intel bodies have increased recruitment of what the U.S. intelligence community calls "non-professional collectors," namely Chinese-Americans driven by feelings of ethnic kinship and profit. It is believed some have been blackmailed into working for China's intelligence agencies because of threats made to their relatives in China. In the past couple of years, however, there has also been a detectable change in one of the ways the Chinese acquire intelligence in the U.S. They now appear to be recruiting non-Chinese with the promise of large sums of money in return for U.S. defense secrets. Intelligence experts insist that Chinese-Americans are not necessarily more vulnerable to Chinese intelligence recruitment inducements than other Americans. It is simply that the Chinese spy agencies prefer to target mostly Chinese-Americans. A U.S. counterintelligence handbook explains it like this:
"The selling point in a normal Chinese government recruitment operation is not an appeal to ethnicity per se but to whatever feelings of obligation the targeted individual may have toward China, family members in China, old friends in China etc. The crux of the Chinese-run approach is not to try to exploit a perceived vulnerability but to appeal to an individual's desire to help china in some way ... ethnic targeting to arouse feelings of obligation is the single most distinctive feature of Chinese intelligence operations."
FBI Director Robert Mueller, in testifying to congress, has stated that "China is stealing our secrets in an effort to leap ahead in terms of its military technology and economic capability."
Joel Brenner, formerly a senior advisor in the office of the director of national intelligence, is on record warning that China is "the most aggressive" of the 140 countries involved in spying against the U.S. The director of national intelligence has also admitted that China now poses "a greater intelligence threat" than it did throughout the Cold War.
None of those disturbing issues were raised by Barack Obama during his China visit. Instead, he presented a picture of harmony between himself and the Chinese leaders, avoiding any mention of the Chinese theft of U.S. rocket launch data, space shuttle technology, missile technology, naval warship data, unmanned aerial vehicle technology, thermal imaging systems and night vision technology. The president's posturing in Beijing contrasted sharply with his May 2009 warning that cyber attacks were among the "most serious economic and national security challenges" facing the U.S. six months later in Beijing it seemed he had forgotten he had ever said that yet he must have known that an investigation into China's cyber attacks by the defense contractor, Northrop Grumman, had concluded that the Chinese were conducting a "long-term" sophisticated network exploitation campaign" against the U.S. and its allies.
One of the interesting facts to emerge from the 2009 U.S. China Economic, security and Review Commission report is that China has been making beg efforts to shape the way in which the American public views relations between Washington and Beijing. It has been doing that by being overly generous and helpful to Washington-based lobbyists and academic think tanks. With one hand, it has employed Washington lobbyists and public relations outfits, for whom money is god, to enhance China's image in the U.S. With the other hand, it has given the best access and research opportunities to academics, who have been reluctant to question or criticize Chinese policies.
But if China is worried about its image in the U.S., it must
be even more concerned about how it is suddenly being perceived
in parts of the world where it is spending vast sums of money
to finalize energy contracts and buy influence. To its horror,
it is finding that the word, "imperialist," which it
liked to use when referring to the U.S. over many decades, is
now being used to define it. Starting in 2007, Muslim separatists
in Ethiopia, where China's oil company, Sinopec, is engaged in
oil exploration, began calling the Chinese neo-imperialists and
subsequently excuted nine Chinese workers. In Pakistan, Chinese
workers were also attacked and murdered and similar attacks took
place in Algeria in August 2009.
|Top|
The final month of 2009 is shaping up to be busy for Congress. That means they're likely to be dangerous ones for all of America, as well. The week after the annual Thanksgiving Day holiday, as American Free Press went to press, the Senate started its debate on its own massive healthcare reform bill.
This column has discussed the healthcare legislation in past issues. Much like its counterpart in the House, it has been impossible to vet all of the fine print in the 1,000-page bill. However, news is slowly leaking out about the measure - and none of it looks promising.
In one recent report, the nonpartisan Congressional budget Office (CBO) has noted that the bill could have the effect of actually increasing medical and insurance costs on average Americans to the tune of 10 percent to 13 percent. Small businesses could face as much as a 3 percent increase on the cost of managing their insurance programs as well.
The CBO attributes the increase to the fact that profit-hungry insurance giants will be expected to cover their costs associated with insuring even more Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions like cancer or heart disease.
House members are also gearing up for a battle over the so-called death tax. So far, the fight has been split down party lines, with Republicans seeking to kill the program while Democrats want to start it back up again. The problem rests over some legislative maneuvering in past sessions that would eliminate the federal estate tax for 2010 before having it kick back in a year later. The issue is likely to come to a head in the coming weeks as both sides argue over what to do.
Other major legislation on the pike includes the annual federal appropriations bill, the federal debt ceiling, the Patriot Act, transportation funding, and an extension of unemployment assistance for workers who were fired following the collapse of the economy.
It's anyone's guess whether any of all to these bills will
pass Congress. AFP editors will continue to watch the proceedings
closely, bringing you all of the details in our exclusive weekly
coverage.
|Top|
Federal reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is so worried that the privately owned and operated U.S. central bank's books will be laid bare to the public that he took to the largest newspaper in the nation's capital to argue against Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Tex.) legislation to audit the Fed (H.R. 1207).
Paul's landmark measure calls on the Government Accountability Office to initiate a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve and then make the findings available to the public within the next year. So far, Paul's bill has garnered 313 cosponsors, nearly three-quarters of the entire House membership. Similar legislation has been introduced into the Senate by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Ver.) with the title "Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009" (S. 604). That bill remains stuck in the Senate Banking Committee as senators continue to debate the details.
In response to the growing popularity of bills that seek to open up or eliminate the Fed, Bernanke put pen to paper in order to whine that any legislation, which seeks to undermine the independence of the Fed or check its absolute authority, would be "out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States."
By invoking the global consensus, Bernanke was obviously clearly calling on his Bilderberg buddies to help him fight the growing populist groundswell to rein in the out-of-control banksters in the United States.
But while Bernanke is crying out for help from international bankers, who observe no boundaries, it is becoming clearer every day in the United states that the dual effect of out-of-control debt and currency speculation have been driving the value of the dollar into downward spiral - something that the Federal Reserve was tasked with preventing, if its founding supporters were to be believed.
As one online commentator from the financial news web site "American Banking News" put it, Bernanke is turning to the globalists and their lackeys in the media because he is deeply concerned that a full audit from the GAO will shine a light on the Fed's dirty business.
The unprecedented support for the measure means it has a good
chance of passage, and that's why he's "attempting to confuse
and distort the issue, in order to take our focus away from what
needs to be done."
|Top|
On November 25, the newspapers in the Northwest said that
a federal public defender was found dead in her southwest Portland,
Ore.
Home, the apparent victim of
a homicide. Typical reporting:
"Nancy S. Bergeson, 57, a well-liked attorney, vigorously defended an assortment of clients during 18 years with the Federal Public Defender's Office in Portland. She was found dead Tuesday, a day after she represented a man in a tax evasion conspiracy case in U.S. District Court here. Bergeson was the daughter of Marian Bergeson, a former California assembly-woman, state senator and California's secretary of education."What they did not say was that Miss Bergeson's court case that previous day had been torpedoed by what some said was "obvious jury tampering" and that she and her clients were screaming about it.
When her body was discovered, authorities initially labeled the death as "natural causes," but the official report was changed to "homicide" following the medical examiner's autopsy the next day. Early reports said police declined to say exactly how Miss bergeson was killed but finally reported on Thanksgiving weekend that is was "death by strangulation."
For the past many months, Bergeson had been defending Marcel Roy Bendshadler, 49, of Portland, one of the five men the U.S. government accused of preparing more than 1,000 fraudulent tax returns between 2001 and 2002. He and the others had been targeted and charged with "conspiracy," that catchall "crime" so often used when no one has been harmed and the government is the only "victim."
Bendshadler holds a master's degree in constitutional law, and has argued at least one case before the Idaho Supreme Court. He has studied income tax law and IRS behavior for years.
Of all the defense attorneys in the case, Miss Bergeson was said to be the only one who showed any sincere belief in the innocence of her client. Friends and court watchers said this was because for 21 months of their relationship in his case, Bendshadler had explained to her much of the skulduggery typical of the IRS and DOJ in tax crime cases, including subornation of both judge and jury and other dirty tricks, such as the subtle lugging of many boxes into the courtroom to suggest that the DOJ had a mountain of evidence against the defendants. The charade is known to be a common ploy routinely utilized by prosecutors in attempt to prejudice a jury before any testimony is heard.
Miss Bergeson's own research and observation had corroborated the picture Bendshadler had painted for her, and she had become a believer, especially as she watched what she perceived to be a victory for the defense unfolding in the courtroom following two weeks of government witnesses, all whom testified there was no conspiracy, along with IRS testimony that none of the tax returns processed was fraudulent; admonition by the judge that the prosecution had not made its case; two days of defense witnesses, two days of closing arguments and almost two days of intense jury deliberation.
Everyone on the defense's side of the courtroom was shocked to hear the jury return guilty verdicts against three of the four co-defendants. Bendshadler and two others were found builty, and a forth man was acquitted.
The defense legal team was utterly devastated. They had canceled many of their witnesses at the last minute to spare the jury since the government had not made its case, as pointed out by the judge at the conclusion of the government witnesses. Even a retired 30-year IRS veteran, who had thoroughly interrogated all the co-defendants, found no evidence of conspiracy.
While available throughout the trial, a who strong witness was deemed not necessary because defense counsel felt that the government had clearly not proven its case.
After the verdict, one court watcher was outraged and said publicly, "This is a obvious case of jury tampering."
Following the next day's murder of the chief defense counsel, speculation was flying that perhaps Nancy Gergeson also had been to outspoken on the subject and may have gotten so close to the truth in her own investigations over the months of association with Bendshadler that she became a dire threat to the IRS and DOJ, putting both at severe risk of exposure of their crimes that deprived Bendshadler of due process.
One unnamed retired law enforcement officer with over 10 years homicide experience said that there is a very high probability that her murder was not just related to her employment, but specifically related to the case.
Bendshadler maintains he committed no fraud and said he plans to appeal his case. But now he has no attorney. "I'm gut-punched sick because I lost my advocate," he sid"She was a fighter. She risked sanctions by the judge when she repeatedly objected to the prosecution putting hearsay documents into the records.
"When they called I was told she was found dead, evidently
in front of her laptop, with my case on the screen," Bendshadler
said.
|Top|
America Needs a New Kind of Trade Policy to save itself from a Total Economic Decline. There is a specter haunting the United states that is destroying the country that one prided itself on being the premier role model for a successful constitutional republic, a government ruled by "We the People," according to the opening words of the preamble of our Constitution.
Millions of citizens are nervous and fearful for America's future but all too few can grasp what ails their country. Is it the recession, or the ongoing global perpetual war for perpetual peace, or the greed of a tax-crazy Congress that sees to it that they themselves have the best medical care available that taxpayers can buy for them and have plenty of free travel and other benefits unavailable to the shrinking middle class, the backbone of our country.
The answer is "none of the above."
What the United States urgently needs to save itself isa new trade policy. So-called free trade must be abolished because its continued existence fosters the loss of more mobs and undercuts America's standard of living, according to a great little book with an eye-opening title: The Dangers of "Free Trade" by John M. Culbertson (1921-2001).
Culbertson was a man who knew in depth the subject about which he wrote. He was a professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an economist with the board of governors of the Federal reserve System, a consultant to the subcommittee on international finance of the House Banking and Currency Committee (now, Financial Affairs Committee), as well as a gifted international lecturer and consultant.
And the freshness of his writing is startling. There is no need to paint a vivid picture of the dismal situation in which the United States finds itself. But a lot of the blame for that situation can be placed on the altar of free trade.
Just about everyone who is not asleep knows that international trade poses a threat to all of us. The once great industrial states like Michigan have lost their industrial base. Detroit, the city that was known during World War II as the "arsenal of democracy," has lost industries to lower-cost foreign competitors. Steel mills and auto plants and suppliers have either folded or fled to more favorable countries.
Mexico is a favorite country for the manufacture of automobiles at lower wage costs which are then exported to the United States to be sold at American higher prices. All of this contributes to the deindustrialization of America.
The industrialization of low-wage nations causes the deindustrialization of the higher wage nations.
Under free trade laws and regulations, the government is helpless to do anything. Private firms are free to do as they wish. What they are free from is action by the government or the nation. Free trade grants privileges to the traders at the expense of taking rights from others.
To be successful, trade must be mutually beneficial.
However, the United States has attempted to move the world toward unregulated international trade. The Western countries open up operations in foreign countries (GM in China and South Korea). The population explosion in Asia makes these countries very inviting to American business because of the ensuing low wage scales.
Meanwhile, the standard of living in the West has fallen and the mythical "productivity of the American workers" is just that, a myth. They are forced to take wage cuts or lose their jobs.
"Unregulated trade across national boundaries has been represented by its proponents as ‘free trade,' exemplifying ‘freedom' asa fundamental right of the kind that underlay the American Revolution. The freedom sought by the Declaration of Independence was freedom of the nation from outside control, from outside domination," says Culbertson.
"Free trade gives to individuals and firms a power that undermines the independence of a nation that merges economically with other nations and deprives itself of control over its own destiny. Traders get privileges that undermine freedom of the nation and its people."
Free trade is a necessary contition for elimination of our national sovereignty and for creating world government.
What is needed is a beneficial international trade that is
balanced and fair trade between all nations.
|Top|
What is deadlier than cocaine, Heroin and the swine flu? Are you sitting down? It is your family doctor. Now familiarize yourself with a new word: "iatrogenic," which means "induced by a physician or surgeon, or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures."
That's right: your doctor is a danger to your health Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health says, "250,000 deaths per year are caused by medical error, making this the third-largest cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dr. Starfield has documented the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm in simple form.
There are other studies that estimate the death toll from iatrogenic causes to be as high as 700,000, but let us put only the Quarter of a million in perspective.
Imagine a Boeing jumbo jet crashing every day of the year would total 200,750 dead people and would have the mainstream media screaming for more safety inspections and regulation. But somehow the medical industry is protected from this scrutiny.
Addiction to painkillers legally prescribed by doctors - drugs that kill thousands of Americans a year - has become a largely unrecognized epidemic, experts say. In fact, prescription drugs cause most of the more than 26,000 fatal overdoses each year, says Leonard Paulozzi of the Centers for Disease Control and prevention. The number of overdose deaths from opiod painkillers - opium-like drugs that include morphine and codeine - more than tripled from 1999 to 2006, to 13,800 deaths that year, according to recently released CDC statistics.
In the past, most overdoses were due to illegal narcotics, such as heroin, with most deaths in big cities. However, Paulozzi says that prescription painkillers have now surpassed heroin and cocaine as the leading cause of fatal overdoses. And the evidence is already surfacing to show that we may be only one or two annual reports away from seeing a brand new category added to the list above: that of "death by vaccination." Cheerleader Desiree Jennings was within a few days of "death by vaccination" when she was saved in October by naturopathic means rather than mainstream medical treatment. (See AFP, 11/23/09.)
Experts say it's easy to see why so many Americans are abusing painkillers. As Americans age and carry extra pounds, more are asking for pain relief to cope with joint problems, back pain and other ailments.
Never has the Biblical admonition, "My people perish from lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6) been more accurate than with the medical profession in the U.S. during the 21st century.
It is not great secret amongst my friends that this writer has not carried any medical insurance of any kind for more than 25 years. My logic is basic. Since I have no plans to ever use heir hospital facilities, why should I burden myself with the monthly premiums?
And why would I place myself into the hands of those administering the third leading cause of death in America? The whole industry is a giant but legalized fraud on the American people, driven by greed and funded by the insurance racket.
In these times of poisoned food and water, chemicals from the sky, mind-altering pharmaceuticals, "court" history and mind-numbing education, there has emerged an unusual breed of American: the truth-seeking reader of American Free Press.
Use what you know to be true, Please. It is time, once again,
to just say "No." We can lead the deceived to knowledge,
but we can't make him think.
|Top|
The cancer industry is a fraud, and now its fraudulent nature is finally becoming apparent to everyone. The technologies do not save lives, the drugs do not cure cancer, and the "science" doesn't add up. Even the mainstream media (such as USA Today) are now describing the failures of mammography in articles showing virtually no reduction in cancer risk by submitting to the test that may even be increasing the risk with its accompanying dose of radiation.
The cancer industry hasn't merely abandoned science in terms of mammography, it has also abandoned all science with the pushing of chemotherapy. There has been no randomized, placebo-controlled study proving that chemotherapy saves lives. That evidence doesn't exist. The whole "treatment" scam is based entirely on fiction. Chemotherapy only works against three rare types of cancer, and breast cancer isn't one of them. Speaking of new mammography guidelines, Dr. Timothy Wilt, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said that women under 50 should never receive mammograms, and women 50 or over should receive a mammogram every two years.
The American cancer Society has a real problem with that. Its entire success depends on more people getting cancer, and one of the best ways to make sure that happens is to keep pushing for more mammograms. In opposing the new mammography recommendations, the ACS has now abandoned science, too.
Actress Suzanne Somers has joined the fight for truth against the AMA. As the author of the New York Times bestseller, Knockout: Interviews With Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer, Somers is making waves across the cancer industry. Her powerful, inspired message of informed hope is reaching millions of readers who are learning about the many safe, effective options for treating cancer that exist outside of "burning, cutting and poisoning" (radiation, surgery and chemotherapy).
Somers explains why she's so concerned about the current course of the multi-billion dollar cancer industry: "In 2010, cancer will be the biggest killer in the world. I fear for everybody walking into the present cancer protocol. It's going to make billions and billions of dollars for the industry while it bankrupts families. It causes expensive deaths. It emaciates people and they die anyway. Why not look into Dr. Burzynski out of Houston? Why not look into Dr. Gonzalez in New York or Dr. Forsythe out of Nevada? They have a different protocol that doesn't require harsh chemicals or degrading the body.
"There are only three kinds of cancer that respond to chemotherapy: testicular cancer, childhood leukemia and some lymphomas including Non-Hodgkin's," she says. For all of us who have raised money ... we've thrown billions and billions of dollars at pharmaceutical companies and the Food & Drug Administration to find a cure, and it has failed. They do not have a cure."
Somers says that the research now shows that mammograms are causing more harm than good, and in one recent interview she dropped the shocker that many women acually got their cancer from mammograms.
Natural News editor Mike Adams calls chemotherapy "the chemical holocaust." When cancer doctors tell you that chemotherapy will save your life, they are lying to you. It is a chemical holocaust.
Recently a new study cast further doubt on the widespread
assumption that regular mammograms save lives, showing that 2,970
women must be screened for breast cancer inorder to prevent even
one death. "For a woman in the screening subset of mammography-detectable
cancers, there is a less than 5 percent chance that a mammogram
will save her life," wrote the researchers from the University
of Nebraska.
|Top|
The year 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the brave campaign by Canadian journalist Gordon Sinclair against forced fluoridation of the Toronto water supply. Sinclair may not be a household name in America, but his central points against the use of fluoride have withstood the test of time and need to be repeated in the important quest of eliminating fluoride from every public water supply on Earth. Those who want fluoride are free to purchase labeled bottle of pediatric fluoridated water for kids, buy it in common toothpastes or through other means. But no one has the right to put fluoride in the public water supply.
The smug dental establishment always clings to the timeworn argument that this hazardous chemical additive must be pumped into our water supplies solely to guard against tooth decay, particularly among children. But as Sinclair so eloquently argued starting in 1959, the problem is that public water fluoridation gives this "medicine" to "all of the people, all of the time," not just to children.
During his noted 1959 anti-fluoride campaign on the radio, Sinclair stated: "I am a mature citizen who opposes the dumping of this chemical into our water. Primarily, I object to being forced to take a medication that I don't like, and know will do me no good so long as I live. It's claimed by those who widh to insert this poison into our water - and it is a poison - That in proper doses it's useful to the teeth of growing children up to the age of 11 or 12. There are many intelligent researchers who say even this claim is too sweeping and rosy."
Sinclair continued: "Now if this chemical is useful, to some of the teeth of some of the children under some conditions, why do they wish to force it into all of water, of all of the people, all of the time? The dose can't be accurately measured because we don't all drink the same amount of water and we aren't all the same size. Children in my experience, drink very little water. And yet those who favor this chemical want to put it in the water we use for washing cars or dishes, filling swimming pools, dousing fires, hosing streets, etc."
He further stated: "I will undertake to make up my own mind whether or not a chemical will be shoveled into the water that I drink. Impressive figures are sometimes inflated to say that tooth decay has declined in the communities where the chemical was pumped into the water. I object on the groundsof my rights as a citizen to refuse medicine. I don't want this medicine. And I challenge the authority of anybody to force it on me. You can go to a drug store and buy a can of this sodium fluoride, but under the laws of our country [late 19 50s Canada] it will have to be labeled poison. This is a must. It is a basic chemical used in rat and bug poison. No one disputes that point. No one claims that fluoride is useful to any adult, anywhere on earth, under any condition or combination of conditions. They do claim that it is helpful to some of the teeth of some of the children, that it is not cumulative in the human system, and that it will not be injurious."
His concluding point was: "Why, if this is supposedly good to a limited group in the population, is it forced into the water of all of the people, all of the time? One of the rights we have to protect is the individual right to take or refuse medicine. And I don't want that right trampled underfoot."
These days, it evidently never occurs to the dental establishment that been if fluoride effectively fights tooth decay without harming anyone, using it in public water supplies is inescapably tyrannical. Just because a narrow segment of "respectable" scientific society declares something is "good," it does not mean that the entire mass population should receive it. And why stop with fighting tooth decay? Why not Xabax ir Zoloft? There is depression out there among some of the people, so why not inject these anti-depressants into the water for everyone, just to cover all the bases? Why not add substances to public water to reduce cholesterol and obesity?
Maybe we could invent a liquid vaccine that we all could drink each day in our tap water to avoid the "swine flu" virus and other germs.
Sinclair's influence is best described as a small but strong injection of truth-based concern into a "pool" of misinformation. He challenged the notion of giving "medicine" to everyone via their water supply just to "help" a small segment - the children whose developing teeth were claimed to be so prone to decay.
For the record, fluoride is cumulative in the human body. This chemical byproduct of aluminum production - which critics say is too hazardous to dump into landfills - is instead channeled through our bodies by way of public water systems. Some Alzheimers' patients have been found to have excessive aluminum deposits in their brains, suggesting a link between fluoride ingestion and Alzheimer's disease that calls for further research.
Incidentally, why does the American Dental Association promote fluoridation allegedly to reduce tooth decay which, if it did, the income of dentists would suffer?
By rmembering Sinclair's campaign against fluoridation, we
can use his bbasic argument of medical sovereignty against vaccines
and a host of other things that the engineers of mass society
proclaim are "for our own good."
|Top|
The food processing world is reeling right now after a shocking new series of tests released in the current issue of Consumer Reports revealed that many leading brands of canned foods contain bisphenol-A (BPA)—a toxic chemical linked to health risks including reproductive abnormalities, neurological effects, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other problems.
BPA is used in the lining of cans, and the toxin leaches from the lining into the food. According to Consumer Reports, just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed scientific limits on daily exposure for children and expectant mothers.
But fetuses and infants are not the only ones at risk. Researchers are also finding that BPA exposure can affect teenagers and adults as well. There are more than 100 independent studies linking the chemical to serious disorders in humans, including: prostate cancer; breast cancer; diabetes; early puberty; obesity; and learning problems.
MESSING WITH YOUR IMMUNITY
According to the research doctors, "Based on the type of invader, your immune system activates either Th1 or Th2 cells to get rid of the pathogen. Th1 (T Helper 1) attacks organisms that get inside your cells, whereas Th2 (T Helper 2) goes after extracellular pathogens; organisms that are found outside the cells, in your blood and other body fluids."
When your Th2 cells are over-activated, your immune system will over-respond to toxins, allergens, normal bacteria and parasites, and under-respond to viruses, yeast, cancer and intracellular bacteria. When one system activates, the other is blocked.
BPA BANNED
The chemical bisphenol-A, which has been used for years in making clear plastic bottles and food-can liners, has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects. The Food and Drug Administration will soon decide what it considers a safe level of exposure to BPA, which some studies have linked to reproductive abnormalities and a heightened risk of various other ailments.
Now Consumer Reports' latest tests of canned foods, including soups, juice, tuna and green beans, have found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods tested contain some BPA. Furthermore, the canned organic foods tested did not always have lower BPA levels than nonorganic brands of similar foods analyzed. Testers even found the chemical in some products in cans that were labeled "BPA-free."
The federal government is currently studying the dangers of BPA, and health advocates are calling on the FDA to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage packaging by the end of the year. Companies in other industries, including Wal-Mart, Target, Nalgene and Babies R Us, have already made commitments to stop using BPA.
THE WORST OFFENDERS
According to Consumer Reports testing, the levels of BPA can vary greatly from one can to another, which makes sense when we consider that the BPA leaches from the lining, and a variety of factors, such as heat, can influence the rate of contamination.
In general, canned green beans and canned soups had some of the highest BPA levels of the foods tested. The worst offenders during their tests included: Del Monte fresh cut green beans, which had BPA levels ranging from 35.9 ppb to as much as 191 ppb; Progresso vegetable soup had BPA levels ranging from 67 to 134 ppb; Campbell's condensed chicken noodle soup, which had BPA levels ranging from 54.5 to 102 ppb.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
THE BELTWAY BANDITS are suffering delusions of grandeur. The Pentagon wants to fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while continuing its military occupation of 130 countries. The Treasury Department wants to prop up Wall Street. Congress wants to borrow more money to encourage Americans to buy homes and cars. The Democrats want to provide free healthcare for all, including illegal immigrants. The problem for Washington is that it is quickly becoming apparent that the debt the federal government has accumulated in the past two decades could bring all of these plans to a grinding halt.
The federal budget deficit is at a record high, adding over $1 trillion to the national debt. Total U.S. debt now exceeds $12 trillion—not including future liabilities—and Congress will have to vote soon to let it go higher or else the Treasury will not be able to pay the interest it owes or float new bonds to take on even more debt.
Contrast that with working-class American families, who have been working hard to whittle down their debt. Every month, Americans are doing the responsible thing by cutting costs to reduce their overall burden. In the past year, despite record unemployment and a collapse of the economy, consumers still managed to knock off $200 billion in debt, bringing down their total from an unprecedented high of $2.6 trillion in the third quarter of 2008 to just over $2.4 trillion as of September 2009, according to the latest figures provided by the Federal Reserve.
Meanwhile, Washington continues to spend what it doesn't have. Democrats want $1 trillion for "healthcare reform." The White House wants hundreds of millions of dollars more to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan—a bloody war that has already gone on longer than WWII and Vietnam and has cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion.
Congress is already negligent, failing to pass seven out of the 12 major appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010, including those that determine the largest budgets in Washington—the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services and Transportation. The 2010 fiscal year for the federal government actually began on Oct. 1, 2009, so bureaucrats in those agencies have been living month to month via continuing measures passed by legislators.
Cash-strapped states are also looking to the federal government for handouts to fund transportation programs and create jobs for struggling Americans. Nowhere has there been a peep about financial responsibility or any of those promised jobs.
The federal government's debt will soon surpass the entire U.S. gross domestic product—the sum of everything American companies produce—which totals $14.5 trillion. Never before has this country seen such irresponsibility.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
"We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." —Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.
Yes, folks they do! The Israelis manifest their control over America through a series of powerful lobbies. Yes, a series, hundreds of them, all under the umbrella of the parent organization known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). No one ever told you this?
AIPAC controls America with money, big money, that is funneled into the campaign funds of U.S. senators, representatives and yes, even candidates for the president of the United States.
AIPAC channels money through a number of innocently named Political Action Committees (PACS) that no one (I don't believe anybody wants to) can trace to AIPAC—Israeli money.
As an example—XYZ PAC (for example only/not real). Sounds like it could be an educational lobby, or a science lobby—but alas, it's money from Israel, routed to political candidates of their choice.
I can't name all these PACS, but I suspect there are 200 or more such phony lobbies whose real purpose is to elect politicians at all levels, especially state and federal offices, who will support Israel without fail. These politicians will support Israel even when Israel is caught spying on America—yes, spying on America.
To provide background as the precursor to the official AIPAC lobby I cite an infamous Israeli spy. Check this out:
1. Jonathan Pollard was turned down by the CIA (after leaving graduate school) for failing a polygraph test. Pollard lied about his use of illegal drugs. He later admitted to prolific illegal drug usage between 1974 and 1978.
2. Guess what: That didn't hurt Pollard with the Navy. He was hired as an "intelligence specialist." The CIA refused to give the Navy any information they had on Pollard.
3. Within two months, Director Richard Haver wanted him fired on suspicion, but Pollard was only transferred to Naval Investigative Service (NIS).
4. In his new position, Adm. Sumner Shapiro ordered Pollard's official clearance be revoked for suspicious behavior. Once again, Pollard was reassigned.
5. Pollard now complained he was being abused, and, in 1984, he received "excellent performance" reviews and was returned to Naval Intelligence. How's that for a pat on the back?
6. Shortly after, in June 1984, documents show that Pollard "started to pass classified information" to Israel. The full extent of those crimes/info, that he gave to Israel has "never been revealed."
7. Israel claimed that Pollard was a "rogue" without Israeli authority or knowledge. If you believe that garbage, it's no wonder America is a puppet state for Israel. And guess what? Bingo! Israel's memory improved—10 years later Israel admitted that Pollard was indeed working for—and with—Israel as a spy.
8. America asked for the return of all documents and materials that Pollard had given to Israel. Israel turned over—"a few, paltry dozen of lowly classified documents" even though our government knew that "Pollard had given Israel close to a million documents," according to U.S. informants. Uncle Sam really shows great concern over this? I wonder why? I think you can start to figure this out.
9. Israel's contact/handler of Pollard was withheld by Israel until finally pressured. One Aviem Selvia came forward to "satisfy" America, and then stepped down.
10. America now offered Pollard a plea agreement. In May 1986, Pollard accepted a life sentence.
11. Upon sentencing, Pollard's wife said, "My husband and I did what we were expected to do for Israel. As Jews, we had a moral obligation to Israel." Allegiance to Israel, not America! (I get sick reporting this to you, and you should be getting sick as well.)
12. Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert all asked for Pollard to be pardoned. All of these leaders are/were prime ministers of Israel. They said, "He was only spying for Israel—set him free!"
13. "After all—Israel is America's greatest ally." They also said "Pollard is a dear friend of both our countries." Some friend to America!
14. Attorney Alan Dershowitz summed it up quite pointedly—"as an American and a Jew, I am outraged at Pollard's life sentence. Pollard pleaded guilty to spying on America and should have received a lesser sentence." Yeah, he only spied on America! I guess that's no big deal for Dershowitz. I always thought traitors and spies were put to death. They should be.
You see folks, it's all about power, pure power. I say that Pollard had big, powerful American power brokers behind him from the very start.
Think again about what Ariel Sharon said again: "We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it!"
I keep reminding you of this statement because I'm the man who's been targeted by both Israel and America for proclaiming that "Israel has a stranglehold on American government, commerce and the media."
I also said, "Israel has involved us in foreign wars to aid Israel expansion, bankrupts our great nation and has our kids shipped back to us in body bags."
James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a well-known football star. He also received a M.S. degree from Youngstown State University in 1976. For ten years he served as executive director of the Mahoning County (Ohio) Drug Program and from 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, he was expelled from the House of Representatives. Despite his conviction and expulsion and being sent to prison for a seven year term Traficant still won 15% of the vote running for re-election to the House in the 2002 election as an independent. He recently completed a seven-year prison sentence, having refused to seek a pardon or clemency, refusing to admit to or apologize for crimes he did not commit.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Two years ago AFP reported that
Sherry Jackson, a former IRS fraud examiner from Atlanta, was
the latest victim in the Department of Justice's crusade to silence
any American who dares tell the truth about the federal income
tax.
This writer has known Mrs. Jackson for a decade. She is an intelligent, articulate woman and a CPA. She is a wife, mother and a Christian. She also doesn't put up with liars who are railroading the American people. She's worked hard over the years to get the truth to her countrymen about how we have been deceived by the IRS.
After seeing an ad placed by the "We the People" Foundation a decade ago, offering a $50,000 reward to anyone who could identify the Internal Revenue Code Section that makes the average worker liable for an income tax, she began to research the law in attempt to win the prize.
When she realized after a week of frustrating study that there was no such law, she came to a crossroads. "I had to either remain an informed slave or get off the plantation," she said. She then joined the truth movement.
On Thanksgiving Day this year, Sherry Jackson wrote to Rep. Hank Johnson of her home district in Georgia to say that not only had she been used as an example by the DOJ for their new program called the "Tax Defiers Initiative" and had served 21 months for a "non-crime," but now she feared the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was trying to refuse her proper medical care to kill her.
"Prior to becoming a political prisoner, I was the picture of health," she told Johnson, before proceeding with a chilling litany of untreated health problems and refusal by officials, nurses and doctors to address them.
Housed in the medium security federal lockup in Coleman, Fla., Sherry began to experience an accelerated heart rate in mid-July. A week later she believed she was having a heart attack in the night.
After three days in the hospital, it was determined that her heart was healthy but she had developed hyperthyroidism. But she was never seen by a heart specialist. She was given pills for her thyroid condition and told that in 30 days she would have a blood test to determine how the medication was affecting her body.
The next few weeks were an exercise in bureaucratic bungling ranging from the loss of her blood work to an eventual suspicion of colon cancer.
"I finally convinced them that I was not playing and was not stupid," she writes, "so they ‘treated' me with a packet for a stool sample test.
"On Wednesday, October 28, I passed out around 4 p.m. and was taken to medical and cleared. On Friday, my lips started turning black."
For this treatment a male nurse was sent over to take her blood pressure and told her that there was nothing else he could do. He told her to go to sick call and be placed on the schedule, meaning little more than she would be "watched."
She closes her letter to Rep. Johnson with:
"Today is November 26, Thanksgiving. I have not received the results of the stool test. I have not been given any new blood test. My neck is swelling up like a blowfish and I am having trouble talking. I have been feeling very ill for the last two weeks. Congressman, I don't want them to kill me in here. As you well know, I am being punished for exposing government fraud."
To contact Johnson: Hank Johnson, U.S. Congressman, 4th District, Georgia, 1133 Longworth HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515. Phone: (202) 225-1605 or fax: (202) 226-0691. To contact Mrs. Jackson: Sherry Peel Jackson 59085-019, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, P.O. BOX 1032, COLEMAN, FL 33521.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
By his own admission, Larry Sinclair is a convicted felon. He's served three stints in prison, and is openly homosexual. He's also Barack Obama's worst nightmare, and in 2010 he's running for Congress in Florida's 24th district. His campaign slogan: "I have served my time, now it's time I serve my country.
Sinclair rose to prominence in January, 2008 after releasing a YouTube video where, on November 6 and 7, 1999 he claims to have engaged in homosexual acts with then-Illinois Senator barack Obama, who during these trysts not only procured cocaine for him, but also smoked crack cocaine while engaged in intimate sexual acts. Although relatively unknown outside his home state at the time, Obama hit the national state in 2004 by delivering a keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. Sinclair realized only then that he'd engaged in sex with an up-and-coming political superstar.
After hearing what he perceived to be blatant lies about Obama's sexuality and drug use, Sinclair uploaded his infamous YouTube video, made a television appearance in Puerto Rico, and addressed the National Press Club in Washington on June 18, 2008. As a result, he describes in his book (Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Coke, Sex, Lies & Murder) how senior advisor David Axelrod spearheaded a vindictive smear campaign against him, while Sen. Joe Biden and his son Beau arranged for his arrest after the NPC speech. Even more incriminating, Sinclair writes about his concerns that Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright were involved in murder of Obama's former lover, choirmaster Donald Young.
Why should we believe Sinclair's claims? Well, one of these individuals - President Obama - is pathologically evasive about his past, while the other reveals himself with candid frankness, warts and all. Considering the enormous amounts of controversy he faces, why doesn't our commander-in-chief simply exhibit the unprecedented transparency he promised during his 2008 campaign? To date, Barack Obama's college records and transcripts from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard have all been sealed and not released - just like his "official" birth certificate has been sealed and not released by Hawaii's governor. Similarly shrouded in secrecy are his medical records, college thesis, University of Chicago articles, Illinois state senatorial files, hospital birth records, passport, parents' marriage license, and past relationships with terrorist William Ayers and ACORN.
To support his claims, Sinclair provides hotel and limousine receipts from that time period, in addition to providing the name of his driver and the company that provided transportation services. On the other hand Obama has submitted no public records of his whereabouts on the two dates in question, or any proof of an alibi that he wasn't in Chicago that weekend.
If Sinclair were attempting to pull a scam, why is he so specific about the details? All the Obama camp has to do is disprove one tiny fact and Sinclair's entire story is undermined. Plus, rather than claiming they were together only once, Sinclair doubles the odds by saying they were lovers on two successive days. Think how much easier it would have been for Sinclair to simply say their tryst occurred "sometime in November, 1999." Further, Obama has admitted to cocaine use in the past, as did his "father-figure/mentor" in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis (who wrote of his own bisexuality in Sex Rebel: Black). Sinclair could have also easily claimed that Obama merely snorted cocaine; but instead, he upped the ante by pointing out that his alleged "lover" smoked crack.
Chicago's South Side has historically harbored a flourishing
underground homosexual community. Obama selected this very South
Side of Chicago to begin his political career. The person who
opened doors for Obama was none other than "spiritual mentor"
Reverend Wright, whose South Side church welcomes homosexuals,
lesbians, and performs same-sex marriages. The circle widens
when we consider William Ayers - the man who hosted Obama's first
fundraiser - who wrote in his biography, Fugitive Days,
of being sexual partners "with his best male friend."
Ayers also served as ghostwriter for Obama's biography, Dreams
From My Father.
|Top|
The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, a 4,700-word statement signed by 150 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders and announced at a press conference in Washington on November 29, 2009, now has in excess of 260,000 signers.
The declaration was noted briefly in AFP's "News You May Have Missed" feature (Dec. 7 and 14, 2009, now has in excess of 260,000 signers.
The declaration was drafted by Dr. Rabert George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence, Princeton University; Timothy George, professor, Beeson Divinity School at Stamford University, Birmingham, Ala.; and Chuck Colson, founder of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian World View.
Here are three salient excerpts from the 4,700-word declaration:
1) "We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truth. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."
2) "We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral."
3) "We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family."
These are fighting words, but are they just words from a document, sighed by the drafters and thousands of interested people that will be forgotten? What is the next step?
The founders of this movement are serious. And they offer some action points on their website, The ManhattanDeclaration.org:
(Caution: There is another website named Manhattan Declaration that deals with "global warming." Make sure you have the correct ManhattanDeclaration.org so that you can read the right declaration.)
• Pray with other men and women of good will that God
will bless this effort.
• Study and learn about the life issues and use the declaration
as a teaching and reference source.
• Invite others to goto the declaration's website and read
it and then decide whether to sign it.
• Talk to your pastor or small group leader in your church.
A number of pastors are already referring to the declaration
in their sermons. Some bishops are planning ecumenical meetings
in their dioceses and districts. Step up yourself and be a leader.
The head of your church may just say that to you when you bring
it up to him.
• Speak to civic clubs like Kiwanis and Rotary that have
regular meetings and often desperately need speakers. Contact
them and tell them about the Manhattan Declaration and even volunteer
to be a speaker.
• Watch what's going on in Congress. Elections are coming
up next year. Some primaries are held early. That's a good time
to talk to your representative or senators about the Manhattan
Declaration.
• Discuss the declaration with friends, neighbors and relatives.
They might surprise you in already knowing all about it.
Professor Robert George and the other promoters of the declaration
like to compare their work to John Wesley's Great Awakening,
the Celtic revival or other movements for social and political
action. They believe God is looking for good men and women who
will pledge (as those who have signed the Manhattan Declaration),
"never to compromise the gospel, and to become well-informed,
effective advocates of true and godly principles."
|Top|
If anyone still doubted that this administration's foreign policy would bring any kind of change, the debate on Afghanistan should remove all doubt. The president's stated justifications for sending more troops to Afghanistan and escalating war amount to little more than recycling all the false reasons we began the conflict. It is so discouraging to see this coming from our new leadership, when the people were hoping for peace.
New polls show that 49 percent of the people favor minding our own business on the world stag, up from 30 percent in 2002. Perpetual war is not solving anything. Indeed, continually seeking out monsters to destroy abroad only threatens our security here at home as international resentment against us builds. The people understand this and are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being heard by the decision-makers. The leaders say some things the people want to hear, but change never comes.
One has to ask, if the people who elected these leaders do obviously do not want these wars, who does? President Eisenhower warned of the increasing power and influence of the military-industrial complex and it seems his worst fears have come true. He believed in a strong national defense, as do I, but warned that the building up of permanent military and weapons industries could prove dangerous if their influence got out of hand. After all, if you make your money on war, peace does you no good. With trillions of dollars at stake, there is tremendous incentive to keep the decision makers fearful of every threat in the world, real or imagined, present or future, no matter how ridiculous and farfetched. The Bush Doctrine demonstrates how very successful the war lobby was philosophically with the last administration. And they are succeeding just as well with this one, in spite of having the so-called "peace candidate" in office.
We now find ourselves in another foreign policy quagmire with little hope of victory, and not even a definition of victory. Eisenhower said that only an alert and informed electorate could keep these war racketeering pressures at bay. He was right, and the key is for the people to ensure that their elected leaders follow the Constitution. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress in order to legitimately go to war. Bypassing this critical step makes it far too easy to waste resources on nebulous and never-ending conflicts. Without clear goals, the conflicts last forever and drain the country of blood and treasure. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war precisely because they feared allowing the executive unfettered discretion in military affairs. They understood that making it easy for leaders to wage foreign wars would threaten domestic liberties.
Responses to attacks on our sil should be swift and brief.
Wars we fight should always be defensive, clearly defined and
Constitutional. The Bush Doctrine of targeting potential enemies
before they fo anything to us is dangerously vague and easily
abused. There is nothing left to win in Afghanistan and everything
to lose. Today's mili9tary actions are yet another futile exercise
in nation building and have nothing to do with our nation's security,
or with 9-11. Most experts agree that bin Laden and anyone remotely
connected to 9-11 left Afghanistan long ago, but our troops remain.
The pressures of the war racketeers need to be put in check before
we are brought to our knees by them. Unfortunately, it will require
a mighty effort by the people to get the leadership to finally
listen.
|Top|
The
Bloomington (Indiana) Herald-Times has posted a gun permit
database online, which is causing quite a stir in pro-Second
Amendment circles. A National
Rifle Association news bulletin said: "Anyone who visits
the newspaper website will be able to search the number of permits
on a given street or neighborhood. Although at this point the
names and house numbers are not listed, the newspaper's website
treats law-abiding Indiana gun owners like sex offenders on a
searchable database.
|Top|
Former congressman Jim Traficant will make a major speech on national and world affairs in Washington to AMERICAN FREE PRESS supporters and all good Americans who care to come on Saturday, February 13, a holiday weekend.
Monday, February 15, is the official "President's Day" holiday. The holiday had been known as "George Washington's Birthday" until Congress, in an ill-considered move, changed the official name. By chance, it is also Valentine's Day. But it does give you an extra travel day.
Registration for the Traficant conference begins at noon on February 13 at the Capitol Skyline Hotel, located on Capitol Hill in downtown Washington, near the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings. Call the hotel at: (202) 488-7500 for room details.
Formal events unfold at 2 p.m. with introductions, followed by Traficant's speech, with question-and-answer sessions. There will be formal breaks and a reception.
Participants will mingle and exchange ideas with Traficant and AFP staff. "You are not coming to Washington just for a speech but for a very special speech," said AFP's Peter Papaheraklis, who set up the event. "You will enjoy casually meeting Mr. Traficant, our staff and your fellow patriots."
Several individuals have put themselves forward as potential leaders of an America First movement. However, Traficant is the one who stands out as having the intellect, the experience, the drive, the emotion, the agenda—and, most of all, the guts—to step ahead of the crowd and address the issues.
Flexible and not hide-bound to ideology, open to solutions, and experienced in government, Traficant has always been non-partisan in the classic sense. Although he served as a Democrat in Congress—nine terms in the House—Traficant was always a genuine independent, a "maverick" in every sense, often voting against the party line in the best interests of the American people.
Jim didn't get rich while serving in Congress—unlike many others. Instead, he worked hard on behalf of his constituents, bringing jobs into a region where insane free trade policies were shutting down local businesses and putting thousands of folks out of work. Traficant emerged as one of the leading critics of "free" trade at a time when many politicians—Republicans and Democrats alike—were still touting globalist measures such as NAFTA that have savaged the American economy.
They're backtracking now and starting to sound like Jim Traficant. But Traficant never changed his tune. He's saying today precisely what he first said 25 years ago when he came to Washington as a member of the House of Representatives.
Prior to serving in Congress, Jim was a popular sheriff in the famed "rustbelt" community in Ohio's Mahoning Valley. Before that he was a drug counselor, well-versed in one of the most serious problems affecting every community in America Traficant understands the big cities and the small towns and he knows how government works—or doesn't work—at local, state and national levels. He's always mixed freely and on a congenial basis with people of all types. He was ranked regularly on an annual basis as "the friendliest member of Congress."
By instinct a coalition builder, Traficant understands the necessity of uniting diverse groups in order to achieve common goals. But he's never swayed from saying, right up front, that it's time to place America First. A classic "grass-roots" kind of guy from Middle America, Traficant understands traditional American values and he's literally seen it (although not by choice) from both sides of the bars.
He's seen first-hand how our Constitution and our civil liberties can be uprooted and twisted and how big government—a direct outgrowth of the abandonment of constitutional principles—has expanded exponentially. Traficant never shields away from taking on the FBI or the CIA or the IRS. He's consistently stood on the side of the people against corrupt government agencies.
And anyone who says that someone such as Traficant, who has spent time in prison, isn't qualified to lead because his background would be "too controversial" just doesn't have any real sense of what America is all about. There are millions of Americans—including "nice" people—who have been behind bars (rightly or wrongly) and they have many more millions of husbands and wives and mothers and fathers and children and aunts and uncles and cousins who turn out to vote, who have political opinions.
Anyone who rejects Traficant's leadership because of his unwarranted time in prison just doesn't have a serious understanding of American politics or social reality. Traficant is unlike any other politician. He not only wears his seven years in prison as a badge of honor, but he also refused to seek clemency or a pardon because he would not agree to apologize for, or admit to, crimes he did not commit.
But Traficant is unique in many important other ways. Traficant actually talks about the Constitution and what it means and why it's being ignored.
He says the IRS needs to be eliminated and that a new tax system can supply all the revenue America needs to function without raping the taxpayers every April 15. Traficant also says that the Federal Reserve System isn't federal—that it's the creation of and controlled by international banks and financial institutions that have no loyalty to America or the American people—and that the Fed needs to be abolished.
He openly challenges the influence of the Israeli lobby—and other well-heeled lobbies and interests—in official Washington. (Really, how many other politicians can you name who dare to challenge the Israeli lobby?)
Traficant thinks it's time that America brings its troops home from policing the world and engaging in fruitless and unnecessary foreign wars and put them to work protecting America's borders and sovereignty from waves of illegal immigrants and potential enemies.
Come to Washington—along with other Americans from across the country—and hear what Jim has to say. It's time for a Second American Revolution and this could—and should—be the beginning.
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 American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The following video is a speech by Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) President John Judge, delivered at the conference held by COPA and the JFK Lancer Group on Nov. 21-22, the 46th anniversary of the killing of John F. Kennedy.
Many conservatives and liberals alike will be astonished by the fact-filled series of articles recently released by AFP on Sarah Palin, particularly the clear demonstration that the "liberal" Washington Post and its sister publication, Newsweek, have been—for a long time—promoting the political and personal fortunes of "right wing maverick" Sarah Palin.
To understand that Palin is not at all "going rogue" as she would like to suggest (and Going Rogue happens to be the title of Palin's new much-hyped memoir) it is critical to understand the nature of the Washington Post Company and those who control it.
While the Post and Newsweek invariably convey a culturally liberal, "politically correct" outlook, often aligned with the Democratic Party—and certainly contrary to what is perceived to be the world view of Sarah Palin—the bottom line agenda for both publications is the maintenance of the American political system as it exists today, dominated by a tightly knit clique of families and financial groups, international in scope, hardly at all concerned with the needs and concerns of grass-roots Americans.
So, in a sense, neither the Post nor Newsweek is, in the bigger picture, really "liberal" at all. Rather, instead, they are a combined and powerful force for the most secretive and yet most powerful interests operating on American soil.
To understand the Post-Newsweek connection to the banking elite is to understand why even an ostensible "rogue" such as Sarah Palin is considered useful to the designs of the global money masters.
In fact, the publishers of the Post and Newsweek have been intimately and directly linked, for almost a century, to the privately-owned Federal Reserve System, the Rothschild- dominated international-banker-controlled money monopoly that controls the American economy, a point many Americans are just now beginning to realize, thanks to the efforts of genuine mavericks such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio).
You see, the Post was purchased at fire sale prices, facing bankruptcy, in 1933 by Wall Street manipulator Eugene Meyer who earlier made a vast fortune as a World War I-era war profiteer under the administration of Woodrow Wilson.
But—more significantly—Meyer was named as one of the earliest chairmen of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System and later as head of the World Bank, along with the Fed one of the primary sources of financial manipulation (on behalf of big money interests) on the face of the planet today. In addition, through his family relationship to the grand rabbi of France and to the Levi-Strauss garment empire (like the Meyer family, one of the biggest of America's Jewish fortunes) Meyer was certainly one of the most powerful figures in America, especially after he began utilizing the Washington Post as a foremost political force in the nation's capital.
Meyer's daughter, Katharine Meyer Graham, later emerged as a major power broker on her own and, with her son Donald Graham, became a regular attendee at the international Bilderberg meetings. Sponsored jointly by the billionaire Rockefeller family of America and their senior partners, the even wealthier Rothschilds of Europe, Bilderberg is an annual, heavily-guarded gathering of a select and secretive group of global financiers, industrialists, politicians, policy makers and others who—despite their claims to the contrary—work directly to shape the course of world affairs through the high-level influence in the nations of the West.
Yet, despite the Meyer-Graham family's close attention to promoting the Rothschild-Rockefeller Bilderberg agenda in the pages of the Post and Newsweek, reports about Bilderberg itself never appear in Meyer-Graham publications or in any of the other major American media voices controlled by the inter-connected elite of Bilderberg.
And while the Post-Newsweek empire is most publicly identified with the Meyer-Graham heirs, the truth is that another major figure behind the publishing giant is Nebraska-based investor Warren Buffet who—while portrayed as a "maverick" himself—has long cultivated close financial ties to other institutions (with substantial stock holdings in the Post-Newsweek holding company) that are, like Buffet himself, closely intertwined with the Rothschild empire.
The point of all of this is to demonstrate the nature of the influential corporate interests that are now promoting Sarah Palin. They hardly constitute the "grass roots" Americans that many might believe have fueled the interest in Palin's political future.
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 American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura's
Dec. 9 broadcast of Conspiracy Theory ended with a major disclosure.
Not only did recovery and rescue worker Mike Bellone reiterate
earlier 2004 claims that the FBI had recovered three of the four
"black boxes" from Ground Zero of the World Trade Center,
but he also quoted a supervisor for American Airlines Flight
11.
This woman monitored the actual live transmissions emanating from this airliner; and according to her, the "hijackers" were already in the plane's cockpit prior to takeoff. Further, she claimed others on the ground were fully aware of this situation while Flight 11 taxied on the runway, and they still allowed it to take off.
Initially, Bellone promised to produce this employee for Ventura, but she declined an interview at the last minute out of fear for her life. After having her house, car and cell phone bugged, federal officials frightened her into not talking. Bellone also divulged that FBI officials told him not to discuss this matter with the media.
Could this startling revelation be the reason why 9-11 Commission members determined that no black boxes had been located in the rubble? If the American public listened to these recordings and heard Arabic (as well as English) being spoken in the cockpit before take-off, the entire scam would be revealed.
However, this line of reasoning doesn't imply that the "19 terrorists" blamed for this attack were actually the perpetrators. Instead, it adds further weight to the premise that they filled the role of patsies. For starters, there is still no concrete evidence that any of these individuals ever boarded the four flights. Rather, were they merely useful idiots who mistakenly thought they were partaking in a hijacking, when in reality Flights 11 and 175 were operated via remote control after take-off to strike WTC 1 and 2? In this sense, similar to Lee Harvey Oswald, who had an elaborate "legend" created around himself prior to the JFK assassination and was deliberately placed on the scene; were they too the byproducts of an elaborately constructed plot to shift blame away from the actual culprits?
Additional evidence of a cover-up arose when Ventura questioned FBI counter-terrorism expert Jack Cloonan, who stated rhetorically, "Does the U.S. government do things in the dead of night that they don't want seen in the light of day? Of course they do."
Then, when told that September 11 may be the first time ever in the history of recorded flight where four black boxes completely vanished, Cloonan replied, "So what?"
Airline investigative expert Dave Leppard also acknowledged that he'd never once been at a crash site where the black boxes (actually orange) had not been discovered. He then proceeded to describe how these very distinct, bright orange boxes made out of titanium are virtually indestructible. "The odds are almost zero percent that they're not found," he concluded.
Journalist Dave Lindorff next weighed in by recounting a meeting he had with NTSB officials. After inquiring whether the FBI had secured these devices, he was asked, "Do you want the real answer, or the official answer?" An official then disclosed that all four boxes were in the FBI's possession. Lindorff summarized the great trick played on us.
"Investigators found fingernail-sized shards of bone to identify the victims, yet we're to believe that all four black boxes are still missing?" [The four six-ton engines from flights 11 and 175 also vanished, according to the government.—Ed.]
Mike Bellone, who worked at Ground Zero for 257 straight days, actually saw one of the recovered boxes three to four weeks after the WTC collapses, and personally witnessed the FBI loading this equipment onto a tractor-trailer. He also referred to New York City firefighter Nicholas Demasi, who claims to have been present when "locaters" found two other boxes.
Why hasn't the public been made aware of these groundbreaking developments? Ventura stated point-blank, "Government officials knowingly destroyed all the evidence at that crime scene. They got rid of every shred of evidence. They melted it down, built ships out of it, or put it on a boat to China."
What little else remains is stored at the mysterious Hanger 17 at New York's JFK Airport. Absolutely no one is allowed access to this evidence.
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 American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Russian military analysts have reported to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that President Barack Obama has ordered his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, U.S. Air force General Gene Remuart, to "begin immediately" increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
The roles of Russia and the U.S. seem to be reversed, as the American press is now portrayed as the propaganda monger. The European Union Times reported:
"Though the coming civil war in the United states is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin, has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the U.S. is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts."
According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks "numerous" meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of America's banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the world in what Russian military analysts state is a "last-ditch gambit" whose success is "far from certain."
As to Obama's "last ditch gambit," these reports continue, "he is to announce in a nationwide address to his people this coming week that he is going to expand the level of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of troops (he has now done so), while at the same time using the deployment of these soldiers as a ‘cover' for returning to the United States over 200,000 additional American soldiers from the over 800 bases in over 39 countries they have stationed around the globe. This would bring the level of these forces in America to over one million, a number the U.S. military believes will be able to contain the explosion of violence expected once Americans learn their economy has been bankrupted."
This political "false flag" could be flown to cover the insurgence of one million troops coming to the cities of America, but its ultimate purpose would not be to quell any nonexistent "civil war," but to finalize the police state and announce a takeover by the New World Order.
Professor Panarin said "the U.S. dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was much less 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."
The scariest "end game" maneuver being made by Obama, says the report, is his record-shattering move to plunge the United States $3.5 trillion further into debt. The increase raises the total amount owed by the U.S. government to over $15 trillion.
The European news reports cite the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war "once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these people by their banks and government becomes known to them." It says that "over 220 million American people are armed to the teeth and ready to explode."
There are some Americans who would say, "bring it on!"
But, other than what President Obama is doing, there is no known
effort or plan to bring civil war to the nation.
|Top|
On December 11, the House passed a massive financial reform bill, which included Rep. Ron Paul's landmark measure to audit the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve.
It was a close call for Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank's 1,279-page "Wall Street reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009" (H.R. 4173). The vote was split down partisan lines with no Republicans voting in favor of the legislation to rein in Wall Street. The good news is the massive measure included language explicitly calling for an audit of the Fed without any additional caveats, rollbacks, exceptions or explanations.
Overall, Frank's legislation is a step in the right direction. According to the summary of the bill, "The Wall Street reform and consumer Protection Act of 2009 - Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 - directs the comptroller general to audit and report to Congress on all actions taken by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve board) and the Federal reserve Banks during the current economic crisis pursuant to specified authority granted under the Federal Reserve Act.
Following the audit, the comptroller will then have to submit his final report to Congress, which will then be made available to the public.
Equally important, the legislation also addresses many of the issues responsible for taking down the economy in the first place.
Among other things, the bill strips the Federal Reserve of some of its financial oversight and hands it to a new government body. It creates a new agency within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to handle investor complaints. It establishes a new laundry list of prohibitions on Wall Street speculation, including new constraints on exotic investments and overseas commodity trading. Finally, it paves the way for a congressional taskforce to probe the revolving door at the SEC, which rewards bureaucrats with high-paying jobs on Wall street as payback for looking the other way.
The measure is a huge slap at Wall Street, but Paul apparently did not like all of the constraints put on the financial industry, so he boted against the bill. Despite his support for small, constitutional government, Paul is a Libertarian free trader at heart, which often runs counter to America-first populism. While he wants the total financial transparency, he is willing to vote against his own measure because he believes that government should involve itself less in markets and allow those who take great risks by gambling in the market to face the harshest reality when poor decisions result in financial ruin.
This is what he said to explain why he cast his "No" vote: "Last week we got the audit the Fed language put into the reform package, which is a very, very complex group of regulations that aren't going to be good for the economy at all."
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) also voted against the bill. An official statement released by the Ohio legislator noted that he felt the bill did not go far enough in regulating the derivatives market and does not break up the modern money trust.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who helped ensure audit the Fed language was included in the current bill, disagreed with Paul and Kucinich and voted in favor of the bill.
Grayson may best be remembered for blasting Federal Reserve Chairman Ben bernanke during a recent House hearing, after the chief banker could not remember how much money the U.S. central bank had loaned to foreign central banks.
"Exposing how the Federal reserve operates is a crucial
component to any meaningful reform," said Grayson. "We
need to find out what they've done andthen we can figure out
how to respond."
|Top|
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced legislation on December 9 hat is intended to initiate a debate and, ultimately, prompt a vote on bringing U.S. forces home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kucinich sent a letter to all of the members of the House to call attention to his resolution.
This is what he had to say: "Yesterday, December 8, with the U.S. secretary of defense at his side, the president of Afghanistan declared that his country's security forces will need financial and training assistance from the United states for the next 15-20 years. We cannot afford these wars. We cannot afford the loss of lives. We cannot afford the cost to taxpayers. We cannot afford to fail to exercise our constitutional right to end the wars."
Kucinch pointed out that the 20-year plan for U.S. occupation of Afghanistan came only days after President Obama said he would begin withdrawing troops in 2011. Realists know the United States will not be able to quash the guerrilla war in Afghanistan in only two years, if ever, so Afghan President Karzai's assessment seems more plausible than Obama's.
The United States cannot afford to dedicate two decades to
a war that has already lasted longer than U.S. involvement in
World War II. It's time to stop the killing, bring the troops
home and save taxpayers some trillions.
|Top|
The Obama administration took a giant step toward world government November 19 when an American diplomat signaled the United States will recognize the International criminal Court. Doing so would mean surrendering significant national sovereignty to a court that could imprison Americans against the will of the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is a major goal of bilderberg, a secret organization of international financiers and political leaders led by banker David Rockefeller and the Rothschilds of Europe and Britain. U.S. "War crimes ambassador" Stephen Rapp became the first American to speak before the 110-nation assembly of State Parties, which oversees the court's work and budget. He also held several bilateral meetings during his visit to the Hague.
Rapp, in a speech to the assembly, said the U.S. is committed to ending immunity for crimes against humanity. Such "crimes" include "hate speech," defined as words that may offend somebody, so global Thought Police could yank Americans off the street and try them in Copenhagen for exercising their First amendment rights. The United Nations recently passed resolutions that would make "defaming" Islam a globally criminal act.
Meanwhile, on October 21, the new U.S. ambassador to Canada again reassured Canadians that President Obama's denunciation of the North America Free Trade Agreement during his campaign was merely political posturing and that he is committed to the agreement. NAFTA, which binds Mexico, the United States and Canada into a single, "borderless" community, is to expand, under bilderberg dictates, throughout the Western Hemisphere and become the "American Union," similar to the European Union.
"Fundamentally, our view of NAFTA is that it is working very will," Ambassador David Jacobson told the Canadian American Business Council in Montreal. "It is working very will for all sides." He said Obama is a "strong believer" in free (as opposed to fair) trade.
Soon after the election, Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, assured Georges Rioux, the Canadian consul-general in Chicago, that the president-elects's comments were just "political posturing," according to a memo written by a Canadian official who attended the meeting.
Bilderberg owns Obama. Obama received his orders at the spring meeting of bilderberg in 2008. Bilderberg first met under that name in 1954 and high officials of the White House, the departments of State, Treasury, commerce, Defense and others attend on a promise of Absolute secrecy.
When the environment surfaced as a major issue in the 1990s, Bilderberg joined in, landing many huge contracts throughout Europe and North America, and perpetuated the myth of "global warming." (The Earth has actually cooled down in recent years, part of a normal cycle._ So Obama obediently announced on November 25 that he would attend a climate summit in Copenhagen. The motive was clearly explained by Christopher at pajamasmedia.com :
"This is what they did - the climate ‘scientists' on whose unsupported word the world's classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all their financial transactions to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights."
The draft to be considered in Copenhagen (paragraph 38, Annex
1) calls for a UN-created government responsible for taxation,
enforcement and redistribution. The UN would administer a "world
government possessing the authority to regulate and tax the American
economy," wrote Jeffrey T. Kuhner, president of the Edmund
Burke Institute. "The treaty is a sword aimed at the heart
of our national sovereignty."
|Top|
Retired Marine Col. Bob Pappas has been saying for years that Osama bin Laden died at Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan only three months after 9-11.
"Now we know that Pappas was correct," writes Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today magazine and also a combat veteran. "The embarrassment of having secretary of State Hillary Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific. He has been dead since Dec. 13, 2001, and now finally, everyone Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn't nuts - is finally saying what they have known for years.
Two weeks later, the Pakistan Observer reported that bin Laden had died at Tora Bora, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended his funeral.
The New York Times magazine admitted (on 9-11-05) that bin Laden "disappeared" and "went missing" at Tora Bora "in early December, 2001 "but did not go further to even suggest that he had died there.
The Bush administration knew Osama bin Laden died Dec. 13, 2001, according to Pappas and Veterans Today.
"With bin Laden gone, we could have started legitimate nation building in Afghanistan instead of the eternal insurgency that we invented ourselves," Duff writes.
9-11 spoof followers will recognize the remarkable coincidence of 12-13-01 also being the precise date of the release of the phony "confession" videotape of a fat-faced imposter claiming to be bin Laden taking credit for the September 11 attacks. This coincidence strongly suggests that the "confession" needed to be aired quickly because no one knew how long the news of Osama's death could be suppressed.
However, thanks to a cooperative and propagandizing news media, the truth is still suppressed and the fabrication continues to be utilized to advance the war effort. While alive, bin Laden always denied any ties to 9-11 (at least four times in public forums) and had vigorously condemned those who were involved in the attack. Even the American press recognized him as a hero when the wealthy Saudi-born patriot went to Afghanistan to help defend the country against the USSR in the 1980s.
This revelation of bin Laden's death would also explain President George W. Bush's own contradictory remarks regarding the alleged fugitive.
On sept. 13, 2001, he said "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him."
He could not have been more emphatic than that. But six months later to the day, on March 13, 2002, after obviously forgetting what he had said in the heat of the September moment, Bush lackadaisically told another press conference (following a question on the same subject): "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not a priority."
Indeed, if bin Laden had been dead for three months, "finding him" certainly would not be a priority.
The truth was that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset for more than 20 years as well as a business associate of George H.W. Bush. When all other flights were grounded during the days immediately following the 9-11 hysteria, a large planeload of bin Laden's family members was allowed to leave the country.
Who is going to answer to the families of those who died for the politics and profit tied to the hunt for bin Laden?
Military veterans are pointing out that the U.S. lost a couple of hundred of our top special operations forces hunting for bin Laden after insiders knew he was already dead, and they want to knowif someone is going to answer for this with some jail time. How about the $200 million price tag on the "Special Ops" looking for someone known to be dead? Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the U.S.? Was this not another treasonous act? And what about the laws passed to further restrict American freedom?
Col. Pappas makes it clear, Vice President Cheney let it "out of the bag" that bin Laden was killed by American troops eight years ago and the cover-up was instigated for political reasons. He says that "diplomatic solution" in Afghanistan could have been achieved in 2002, at five cents on the dollar compared to what we are spending fighting a war against an enemy we ourselves recruited through ignorance. The Afghan War is now projected to cost $3 trillion more.
An angry Gordon Duff laments: "We spent eight years chasing
a dead man, spending billions, sending FBI agents, the CIA, Navy
Seals, Marine Force Recon, Special Forces, many to their deaths,
as part of a political campaign to justify running Americans
into debt, enriching a pack of political cronies and war profiteers
and to puff up a pack of Pentagon peacocks and their White House
draft-dodging bosses. The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful
acts ever perpetrated against the American people."
|Top|
I served in Congress for 17 years (1982002). One term I received more votes than any other member. I fact, my vote total exceeded that of several U.S. senators
The government and media did everything to defeat me. I never raised much money. In fact, the word was "out" that if you contributed to JT's campaign your'd be audited by the IRS. Over those 17 years I returned more than $2 billion (over normal formula money) to my impoverished district.
When I took office in 1985 (the only Democrat to defeat an incumbent Republican during the Reagan landslide over Mondale), the unemployment rate in my district was over 22%. When I left, it was 6%. I'm proud of that.
I didnt make friends as I manipulated every possible maneuver to bring federal dollars home to put our people to work. I don't apologize either, since that money was being taken by the big dogs of Congress each and every parliamentary machination imaginable.
Now that you have that brief snapshot, we can visit the "Trafican for Congress" odyssey.
The 17th district of Ohio consisted of Mahoning and Trumbull counties, both heavily democrat.
The incumbent Democrat had been defeated by Lyle Williams ®), mostly due to alleged illegalities. With opposition from the media, and inner party backstabbing, Rep. Charles Carney was defeated. Williams was reelected three times.
I ran for Congress in 1984. What an ordeal! I was opposed by all the institutions, media, chambers of commerce and yes, both county Democratic parties. I was so opposed, I did not even seek an endorsement of either Democratic Party.
I defeated Williams. He got the biggest vote of his career, but what no one expected was 65,000 new voters casting ballots. I had a strong following.
I had won the primary election by a landslide.
I was now targeted. I was so opposed that presidential candidate Walter Mondale's staff asked me to not attend his rally at Youngstown State University (over 6,000 people). Mondale's staff said; "The Ohio democrat Party, and both county parties, oppose you. They've told us that if you're invited they will be very upset with the Mondale campaign."
I'm the democratic nominee for Congress - by a landslide - and the local, state and federal Democratic bosses wanted me defeated. The democratic National committee was told that "they would not receive any money from this district if they helped Traficant."
I wasa total maverick, opposed by the powers that be.
I got a phone call from a local politician, L.P., who said "There's a businessman (Mr.X) that wants to meet you and give you help with your campaign."
It sounded promising. I agreed to meet. The meeting was held at Perkins Pancake House in Canfield, Ohio.
Here's how it transpired (names withheld).
LP: "This is Mr. X. He asked me to arrange this
meeting."
JT: "Glad to meet you, Mr. X." (Shake hands,
and small talk occurs.)
Mr. X: "I realize that you need money, and I'd like
to help."
JT: "I'd appreciate it."
Mr X: "I am a board member of the American Israel
Public affairs Committee (AIPAC) and would like to make a contribution
to your campaign."
JT: "Thank you, I have little money. I can use it."
Mr. X: "I have $10,000 in cash for you."
JT: "The primary election is over. I can only accept
$5,000" (knowing he would not do this).
Mr. X: "I can't do that. The incumbent is our friend
and he would be offended if he found out I gave you a contribution.
I'd prefer to give you $10,000 in cash, with no record."
JT: "That would be a campaign violation for me, and
the government would just love to put me in prison."
Mr. X: "You have nothing to worry about from me.
The government will not bother us. I can assure you of that.
JT: "Let's check this out. You want to give me $10,000
in cash, with no record of it. Truth is, I didn't just fall off
a turnip truck. AIPAC, and your extensive network of PACs, have
reportedly given your Republican ‘friend more than $200,000
already."
Mr. X: "He's been a good friend." (He never
denied the $200,000.)
JT: "Yes, I know that. And you want to buy some insurance
with me, in the event that I knock him out. Right?"
Mr.X, stunned by my comment, seemed speechless.
JT: "I'll tell you what Mr. X, you keep your $10,000,
and I'll keep my vote."
Mr. X: (noticeably upset) "You'll never win with
that attitude toward Israel."
JT: "Maybe not, but I'll keep my own vote."
The meeting ended abruptly. They left. I finished a diet cola. I was not surprised. When I realized who Mr. X was, I expected his actions. (AIPAC tried to defeat me in the Primary elections.) I suspect that this type of meeting has occurred with politicians throughout the U.S.A.
I won the election. The first person, desperately trying to meet with me (election night, was Mr. X, who wanted to "develop a friendship." We never did. Good fences make good neighbors.
This article is the truth, an almost word-for-word depiction of the meeting that took place. This is not meant to be self-serving, but to give you insight as to how AIPAC infiltrates the policies and politics of the United States.
I assure you that both Mr.X and the local politician who arranged meeting will never admit this, but that is exactly what occurred in the summer of 1984.
I was targeted by AIPAC when Mr. X left that restaurant. I felt it! I also believe that AIPAC had much to do with my wrongful conviction and incarceration, but that's an issue for another day.
AIPAC usually gets a piece of most politicians. Not this time.
"We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." (Statement of former Israeli prime minister, ariel Sharon Oct. 3, 2001.)
I say again AIPAC has a stranglehold on America. Call me what you will, but that is the gospel truth. I futher state that if America Does not stop AIPAC, America will be further damaged. In addition, in the long run, AIPAC will damage Israel as well. That is, if Israel is an innocent bystander in all this debacle.
However, I doubt it.
Next Week: AIPAC spies, rosen and Weissman, "get
back at me."
|Top|
In the name of protecting the little guy from Wall Street, the House passed HR 4173 to increase the little guy's false sense of security in the financial system. This mammoth piece of legislation would massively increase government regulation and oversight in the banking industry under the misguided reasoning that more government could have stopped faulty lending practices, when in actuality it caused them. This bill would also greatly increase the powers of the Federal reserve, which too many in congress still see as savior.
One silver lining is that the amendment to audit the Fed is still attached to the bill and, if it survives the Senate, The Fed will no longer operate in secrecy. If any version of HR 4173 becomes law, the fed will be intervening and bailing out more rather than less, as it will gain enormous new powers in addition to those it already has. Whatever happens, the Fed and its defenders have seen that people are becoming very wary of its methods of operation, and many are downright angry at its very existence. Never again will the fed be immune from the scrutiny of its critics. This is very positive.
Because of legal tender laws that force acceptance of the dollar, the Fed has absolute power over the currency. This absolute power is leading to the absolute corruption of our currency. The money supply has doubled in the last year or so, which is extremely dangerous. The banks seem to be hoarding liquidity now, but once these dollars make their way into the economy, hyperinflation and economic chaos will be a real possibility.
Every time hyperinflation rips through an economy, the middle class gets completely wiped out. It is very alarming to watch the purchasing power of an entire life savings reduced to that of a few pennies. Those savings represent rears of real labor, realtime, effort and sacrifice exchanged for corruptible pieces of paper that bankers can destroy on a whim.
Legal tender laws force the people to become subject to this risk for the benefit of the rulers. Artificial demand for currency allows the authorities to create arbitrary amounts of it to pay for wasteful projects, like frivolous wars and an ever-expanding public sector. This saps the private economy of jobs and purchasing power, yet the temptation proves too great for politicians, time and time again. Our government is no different. Although our dollar has taken nearly an century to lose 98 percent its purchasing power, the fact that we are all obliged to participate in this slow burn of the economy in pain of imprisonment is anathema to the principles of liberty.
I introduced the Free Competition in currency Act recently
to free the people from these governmental threats. HR 4248 would
repeal legal tender laws, prohibit taxation on certain coins
and bullion, and repeal certain laws related to coinage. The
prospect of people turning away from the dollar towards alternate
currencies should provide incentive for Congress to regain control
of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness
to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive
to inflate the currency and keep us from launching unconstitutional
wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency,
everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary
system.
|Top|