December 6 & 13, 2010
- Privacy Rights: Now Or Never
- Rothschild Dynasty Slams Obama; Calls for Centrist Movement in U.S.
- AIPAC Caught Up in Spy Case, Sordid Scandal
- Bill Wants All Farms—Big & Small—Under Control of Military
- Will TSA Justify Existence With 'False Flag' Incident?
- Rangle: The Hood from Harlem
- Swiss Nationalists Defy EU-Globalist Meddling
- The HIV-AIDS Lie
- Warning: 'Don't Raise Debt Ceiling Any Further' by Rep. Ron Paul
- Anti-Bullying' Bill Supported by ADL Is Designed To Prevent Honest Discussion of Israeli Crimes
Whole Body Health & Preparedness
- Screwy Bulbs: Mandatory New Lighting Presents Serious Hazards
- The True Benefits of Raw Milk
- Imported Fish Found to Be Dangerously Toxic
- Egg Scam Another Monopolist Attack on Citizens
- Danger in Your Toothpaste Tube
December 20, 2010
- Wife of ‘Killer' Speaks
- Rothschild-Sponsored Third Party Effort Unveiled
- Dems Using Dirty Tricks to Pass Nightmarish DREAM Act
- Outcome of ‘Con-Con' Is Impossible to Predict
- Secrets of Federal Reserve Disclosed: Bankers, Wall Street Got Trillions$$
- American Dream In Peril From Fed
- Millionaires Flock to Congress:
- Patriotism Has Everything to Do With Love of Freedom - Not Love of Government
- WikiLeaks Ires U.S. Government for Revealing Truth
- U.S. Policy - Not WikiLeaks - At Fault
December 27, 2010
- Globalists Say It's Their Time
- Here's Why FBI Is Orchestrating Fake Terror Plots
- Should We Trust WikiLeaks 100%?
- Secret Cabal Controlling High-Risk Investments
- How the Feds Infiltrate, Undermine the 9-11 Movement
- Amnesty for Children of Illegals Could Cost $20 Billion
- U.S. Empire's Expanding Footprint
- Full Audit of Fed Must Be Accomplished In 2011
- Will World Really End On December 21, 2012?
American Free Press December 6&13, 2010
A prolific author and Bible scholar is sounding the alarm on the growing surveillance state, admonishing Americans to stand up now against an increasingly oppressive government—or face the risk of losing privacy forever.
Recently, AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke with Grant R. Jeffrey, author of the book Shadow Government: How the Secret Global Elite Is Using Surveillance Against You.* This is a subject he has been researching since the 1990s. An expert in biblical prophecy, Jeffrey has written 25 books, selling over 7 million copies. Asked why he wrote the book, Jeffrey was blunt: "I learned that the growing field of surveillance was destroying any privacy or freedom that we had in private communications, and I am warning people that are concerned that it's now or never. If we don't complain and bring this up to our political representatives and demand a privacy law then we'll never regain privacy."
Why is this situation so critical now?
"After 9-11, privacy became impossible," said Jeffrey. "Our society and citizens within it and their leaders made a conscious decision to trade our privacy and our freedom for the illusion of security. And that's the situation we have today which is underlined by the ridiculous situation in airport security and many other things that are really showing that to a tremendous degree, the terrorists have succeeded in transforming our formerly free society."
Why the title Shadow Government? Don't we live in a country where our representatives are democratically elected, AFP pressed?
"Well if you look back in history, power was always very much up front and center," he said. "Everyone knew who the king was, the president, the prime minister. But increasingly in our generation, power is exercised from the shadows."
Asked to elaborate, Jeffrey continued: "Power is exercised often by secret intelligence, military and police groups behind the scenes with little democratic accountability to our elected representatives, partly because of the nature of weapons of mass destruction.
Since we could lose London, Washington or Ottawa at any given moment, our governments have been forced to engage in massive continuity of government programs, and they would be irresponsible if they did not plan for the worst. Because of this, governments have been forced to set up parallel governmental systems, to carry on without Congress or without Parliament."
So how does high-tech surveillance tie in to this? "In our world we have really traded our freedom and privacy for an illusion of security because of the fear of terrorism," Jeffrey concluded. "Every phone call, whether it is a landline or a cell phone, is monitored by intelligence agencies, police, and even our Internet searches are stored and made available to police, not just the police of the United States, but police of other countries."
* The book, Shadow Government, is available from AFP for $15 plus $3 S&H. AFP's 40-minute interview with the author is available on CD for $15 plus $3 S&H. The book and CD are available as a set for $25 plus $5 S&H. Call 1-888-699-6397.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
An influential member of the international Rothschild banking dynasty—often called "the family that rules the world"—has lent her support to the theme that Barack Obama must be removed from the White House and that America needs a grand "centrist" coalition to save the nation.
That a key Rothschild network figure endorsed this concept—which is being relentlessly promoted in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post—underscores recent exclusive reports appearing in AMERICAN FREE PRESS detailing a high-level scheme to foist a phony new "centrist" third party on Americans.
In 2008, lifelong
Democrat Lynn Forester de Rothschild endorsed GOP presidential
candidate John McCain after the Democratic Party rejected de
Rothschild's first choice, Hillary Clinton.
The American-born Lady Rothschild— chief executive of
E.L. Rothschild,
a key Rothschild holding company—is the wife of Sir Evelyn
de Rothschild. She was first introduced to her husband in Scotland
in 1998 by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a
meeting of Bilderberg—the global planning group dominated
by the Rothschilds, assisted by their American lieutenants, the
Rockefellers.
Endorsing McCain, Mrs. Rothschild proclaimed Obama too "ideological"—that is, too "liberal"—an interesting assertion coming from a stalwart Democrat. Now Mrs. Rothschild is once again aiming her guns at Obama, echoing the very rhetoric about the need to adopt "centrist" policies prevalent in all of the recent propaganda in the elite press that AFP—alone among the independent media—has been scrutinizing.
She expressed her "centrist" concerns on the Internet's Daily Beast on Feb. 28, 2010, but few noticed it at the time. It's no coincidence this was the forum she used to vent her attack: the Daily Beast is merging with the Rothschild-connected Washington Post Company's Newsweek magazine, recently transferred to the control of Zionist billionaire Sidney Harman, who—like the Rothschild dynasty—is a major patron of Israel.
In her commentary, Mrs. Rothschild declared: "After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that . . . we already knew what kind of president he would become. . . . Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist."
Mrs. Rothschild wrote: Sure, [Obama] made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. . . . They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America. . . .At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. . . . In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists. So if he wasn't going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign . . . . Obama declared he was running "not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation." Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. . . . His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives. Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle.
While it certainly confuses many people (particularly self-styled "patriots" and "conservatives") that Mrs. Rothschild (and like-minded associates in the mass media) call the Clintons "moderates," that has, in fact, been a continuing premise in the media, especially of recent date, as if the stage is being set for a return of "Bill and Hill" in the form of a "centrist" challenge to Obama.
However, note that Mrs. Rothschild denounced not just Obama but "both parties." Her rhetoric precisely reflects ongoing high-level calls in the media monopoly for a "centrist" rebellion against both "the left" and "the right":
We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi and Reid; and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong.
Here is what's happening: Recognizing growing widespread disgust with both major parties, the elite big money forces seem to be laying the groundwork to usher in a new "centrist" party—a "controlled opposition" under their domination—to block the rise of any genuine populist third party challenging their power. The war-profiteering plutocratic elites want to be assured that—in the face of growing opposition from Americans on both the "left" and the "right"—budget busting internationalist policies promoting U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East and across the globe—in the name of what is now being touted as American "national greatness"—will be preserved.
In fact, the "national greatness" concept is just a patriotic-sounding cover name for what many call the New World Order.
Note, too, that although both "liberal Democrats" and "conservative Republicans" have done big money's bidding for a century, a new "centrist" force—orchestrated by the major media (owned by the financial aristocracy)—would shatter the existing traditional local, state and federal political machines of the major parties which are closely tied to their own respective constituencies (small business, farmers, public employees, minorities, factory workers, etc). Divorced from grassroots demands, the new "centrist" mechanism would answer only to the major media controllers who conjured up the "centrist" party in the first place.
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|
Just when it seemed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spy scandal dating to 2005 could not get any more bizarre, tales have emerged of top lobbying staff watching explicit pornography, homosexual liaisons made through the Internet and charges of executives hiring prostitutes. And if that is not exciting enough for spy buffs, there is a real possibility one of its directors, sacked following an FBI espionage probe of two of its top advisers, may blow the lid on AIPAC's secret role in the political life of Washington.
On Dec. 13, Stephen Peter Rosen, the organization's former foreign policy chief, will argue in court he was fired because AIPAC feared what a federal probe of its activities might reveal. He will also challenge the organization's public argument it sacked him because he acted without approval when acquiring secret U.S. documents and when he warned an Israeli embassy official in Washington an FBI espionage probe was in place. Rosen believes he has enough evidence to show he was hung out to dry to protect AIPAC from a federal witch hunt. Some of the organization's rich backers think so, too. Since his sacking, a number of high profile donors have provided him with $1 million to help him in his legal battle.
That battle began five years ago when he and AIPAC's Iran analyst, Keith Weissman, were caught with classified material provided by Pentagon spy Lawrence Franklin. The FBI had Rosen and Weismann dead to rights but they argued they were acting as AIPAC lobbyists. They would filter the information through AIPAC to the Israeli Embassy in Washington or to AIPAC offices in Tel Aviv. Rosen claimed he was not aware he was subject to any U.S. legislation such as a British-type Official Secrets Act that would have prevented him or journalists from handling sensitive information.
No one should be surprised AIPAC has been involved in this kind of intelligence gathering over half a century. It is, after all, the successor of the American Zionist Council, which was disbanded in 1962 after being ordered by the Kennedy administration to register as an agent of the Israeli government. Six weeks after it was wound up, its top people, at the behest of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, incorporated AIPAC in its place. It has been tax exempt since 1968.
According to Rosen, he has more than 180 AIPAC files showing the kind of activities it has been involved in traditionally, and those he contends will demonstrate he was only doing his job in 2005 when he was "sent out to do something for them that was not illegal."
The FBI charged Rosen and Weissman with illicitly obtaining classified U.S. government intelligence and defense data. However, for reasons not made clear, the charges were dropped in 2009. At the time, both men were planning to depose in their defense some of the most powerful figures in the United States, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The decision by the Justice Department to drop the spying charges spurred Rosen to go after AIPAC for defamation, and he launched a $20 million defamation suit against his former employer. He should have known taking on a powerful lobby group would be no easy task and things could get down and dirty. That is exactly what happened.
In a 250-page deposition in the suit, AIPAC's lawyer, Thomas L. McCally, questioned Rosen under oath, and the result was a withering cross-examination that dissected his personal life. He was forced to admit he had regularly accessed pornography on his work computer though he claimed he saw at least 12 other AIPAC staffers do likewise. He alleged some AIPAC directors even boasted about using prostitutes.
To Rosen's amazement and dismay, the AIPAC legal team had unearthed previously closed divorce filings in which his first wife (of five wives) cited evidence he had been soliciting men for sex. Under oath, Rosen admitted it was true and he had arranged sexual trysts with men through the Internet, sometimes on his work computer. He claimed he had not been aware he had stored pornography on his computer, which was how AIPAC investigators discovered he had been accessing lewd material online.
His suit was dismissed but the judge in the case accepted he was entitled to challenge AIPAC in a jury trial for its statement he was sacked "because he did not reflect AIPAC standards."
Rosen says his lawyers will show, through evidence he has given them, it was AIPAC's role to amass information about U.S. Middle East policy and AIPAC was often asked by U.S. officials to help them build support for controversial policies on Capitol Hill. AIPAC's success in fighting off the Rosen defamation suit is the least of its worries. If Rosen can now prove in court AIPAC, on behalf of Israel and its intelligence community, regularly acquired and processed classified documents about U.S. foreign policy positions, AIPAC could be required to register as the agent of a foreign power as happened to its predecessor, the American Zionist Council.
There could be other consequences. Revelations about AIPAC as a direct tool of Israel could frighten off many of its big American donors, some of whose names have already surfaced in legal filings. Additionally, there could be pressure on the Justice Department to carry out a probe of the organization.
AIPAC's immediate problem is it cannot be seen to be buying Rosen's silence, because that would lead many to conclude Rosen's claim about AIPAC's intelligence gathering activities was accurate. As a consequence, it would be difficult for AIPAC to maintain it is merely a non-profit lobbying firm engaged in promoting American-Israel relations.
There has already been some fall-out from the Rosen affair. AIPAC coffers have taken a big hit with a shortfall in donations estimated at $12 million and rising.
RichardWalker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.
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|
SPOTLIGHT ON CONGRESS
ON NOV. 30, THE SENATE overwhelmingly passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) by a vote of 73 to 25. The intent of the legislation is to give the federal government the power to shut down unsafe food providers, such as the massive Iowa chicken factory farm that was at the center of a nationwide recall of a half-billion eggs. However, critics argue that the bill imposes radical and onerous restrictions on all food providers, including small farms and even makers of nutritional supplements.
AFP first detailed this story in the Nov. 15 issue, calling it "the most sweeping update of food safety rules in the United States in more than 50 years." Critics of the bill have blasted the measure as one of most dangerous pieces of legislation to ever be introduced in Congress, since it addresses the most important thing for human life next to clean water—that is, the quality of food we eat.
As we noted earlier, in the event of some unspecified "national emergency," the bill will put all farms and all food under the direct control of the Homeland Security Department and the Department of Defense. The biggest concern is that this will lead to rationing and other controls of food. We know what happened in communist countries when food produced on farms was collected up by armed soldiers and redistributed around the country. The common folk in Eastern Europe, Russia and China all suffered through decades of government-induced famines, while most of the food went to feed the soldiers and leaders in their war machines.
The good news is that advocacy groups have been working with legislators to eliminate some of the worst aspects of the bill. No longer does the bill impose on food a global system of compliance in line with the World Trade Organization. Also, makers of nutritional supplements will not face 10 years in prison for failing to meet the bizarre and complicated requirements set by the Food and Drug Administration.
Finally, the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANHUSA) worked to exclude small businesses and local and organic farms from some of the worst standards that would be enacted under this bill.
In a press release put out in late November, ANHUSA wrote: "We do not think the Senate food safety bill will make food safer; quite the contrary. At least we have succeeded in removing the very worst parts of it."
The bill now goes to committee where senators and congressmen will try to reach some compromise bill. There still is a possibility that this new compromise bill will not pass. AFP will keep watching the measure as the lame-duck session continues.
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|
As Americans become more and more fed up with the KGB-like treatment by the Transportation security administration (TSA) at airport security checkpoints around the nation, outrageous stories of abuse of both the elderly and children, are becoming the daily norm rather than the exception.
Earlier this year when the full-body scanning machines were introduced most of the passenger outcry was not about the dose of radiation threatening physical harm - especially to those pilots and frequent flyers who get a weekly dose - but rather the "porno-screening" on the scanners that invades the privacy of men, women and children, showing them virtually naked.
The TSA has deployed nearly 350 advanced imaging technology (body scanner) units in nearly 70 U.S. airports, administrator John Pistole said recently [and as noted in AFP edition No. 48, 2010] "By the end of calendar year 2011, we plan to have deployed approximately 1,000 units," he was quoted as saying.
Because of the uproar against this privacy invasion, TSA on Nov. 1 began allowing passengers to "opt out" of the body scan. However, in order to do so, passengers had to submit to pat-downs - akin to police searches of suspects - that already are raising further complaints of agents "going too far." Now TSA is actually threatening fines and even jail time to anyone refusing to submit to either the examination or body search.
While AFP does not traffic in "predictions," we also don't hesitate to point out blatant handwriting on the wall when we see it.
In 1993, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) pulled its infamous raid on the Branch Davidians' church-school outside of Waco, Texas, even CBS reporter Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes spent a 20-minute segment showing that the raid was actually staged to improve the faltering image of the agency by scoring a great victory against this "dangerous faction." Of course, the theatrics blew up in their faces, and the BATF came off looking worse than ever.
It is very difficult today, for any logical-thinking person with the facts, to argue with 1,200 architects and engineers who say that the three World Trade Center building could not have fallen on Sept. 11, 2001 without the aid of previously planted demolition charges. This destroys the government's cover story, so cleverly sold to the naïve public, and solidifies the case for an "inside/Mossad job."
Now evidence has surfaced that a similar idea had been brought forward (but rejected by JFK) in 1962, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff dreamed up the "Operation Northwoods" plot to hijack or shoot down U.S. passenger and military planes, sink a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burn crops, sink a boat filled with Cuban refugees and stage attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States against targets not yet determined. All these actions would be blamed on Cuba and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of fidel Castro's communist government.
President Lyndon Johnson, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and several senators knew that the alleged attack by North Vietnam on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 never happened. But the result was a half million men in Vietnam the next year because the military-industrial-banking complex needed a war at that time.
Because an expanding government must justify its own existence from time to time, because Homeland Security has been unnecessary, because the "war on terror"has so far been a joke on us by fear-mongering bureaucrats - and because TSA has yet to catch its first bona-fide terrorist - are we due for a false-flag op?
Noted writer Paul Craig Roberts writes, "The final proof
that there are no terrorists is that not a single neoconservative
or government official responsible for the Bush regime's invasions
of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Obama regime's slaughters of
Pakistanis, Yemenis and Somalians has been assassinated. None
of these Americans who are responsible for lies, deceptions and
invasions that have destroyed the lives of countless numbers
of Muslims has any security protection. If Muslims were capable
of pulling off 9-11, they are certainly capable of assassinating
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Condi Rice, Kristol,
Bolton, Goldberg and scores of others during the same hour of
the same day."
|Top|
Although she has little room to talk, House speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to "drain the swamp" that plagues
our nation's capital. Although the results have been less than
stellar, one of the Trilateral Commission's mighty has taken
an embarrassing fall.
On Nov. 16, an eight-member House committee found Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) Guilty of violating 11 ethics rules in regard to financial and fund-raising misconduct. Two days later this same panel censured him, in effect giving the New York Democrat nothing more than a public scolding.
Charges against him included the improper use of House stationery to solicit campaign money, failure to disclose over half a million dollars in assets on tax forms, illegally utilizing rent-controlled apartments as his campaign headquarters, the failure to report rental income from properties in the Dominican Republic, and using campaign money as a personal slush fund.
Beltway insiders have long been aware of Rangel's underhanded practices. In 2009, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rangle's underhanded practices. In 2009, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rangel one of Washington's most corrupt congressmen for the second straight year.
Not surprisingly, this career politician's history of padding his pockets stretches back decades. An understanding of the criminal culture surrounding him can be found in what became known as the Harlem Mafia or Gang of Four. Among its members were Rangel, Now York City's first black Mayor David Dinkins, Basil Paterson and powerbroker Percy Sutton.
Sutton rose to prominence as an attorney for Malcolm X, and then groomed rangel as his proté. Their influence became so pronounced that in 2006 Gov. Eliot Spitzer selected influential Harlem state Sen. David A. Paterson as his running mate after a meeting with Sutton and Rangel.
Paterson is the son of Basil Paterson, attaining his father's former state Senate seat in 1985. The elder Paterson also served as New York's secretary of state.
In 2008, Sutton dropped a bombshell by claiming that Barack Obama's tuition at Harvard Law School had been facilitated by Kahlid al-Mansour, a "political godfather" who mentored Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, two of the Black Panther Party's founding members.
As AFP went to press, the House voted 333 to 79 to censure Rangel.
Sutton's status as a race-baiter emerged following the 1987 Tawana Brawley slander case when he paid Rev. Al Sharpton's fines. Brawley falsely accused six white men, including police officers, of raping her. Another lifelong race-based shakedown artist, Rev. Jesse Jackson, selected Sutton as his presidential campaign finance chairman in 1988.
Rangel and Sutton were subsequently linked via Harlem's Apollo Theater scandal where Sutton faced charges of financial mismanagement. Rangel headed the Apollo Foundation's board of directors.
Rangel also found an ally in New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. In a March 31 article entitled "Charlie Rangel: Harlem's Godfather," Bud Meyers described how Rockefeller "arranged for rangel to run on the Republican and Democratic ballot line during his 1968 reelection."
Other troublesome undertakings have arisen. In January 1978 Rangel attended a conference hosted by a soviet front organization known as the World Peace Council. The sponsor was Abe Feinglass, a Chicago-based advisory member for the Communist Party USA.
Similar to President Obama's spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has promoted a host of Marxist and "black liberation" causes, Rangel harbors his own affinity fror the radical olitics of victimization.
Although crying poormouth to this day, Rangel and his opportunistic
cohorts in the Gang of Four cabal all ended up fabulously wealthy.
In contrast, the lives of their black constituents in Harlem
have been wracked for decades by poverty, rampant drug abuse,
gang warfare and high dropout rates.
|Top|
Geneva, Switzerland - A nationwide Swiss popular initiative on Nov. 28 resulted in 53 percent of the voting population and a majority of the 26 cantons (regions equivalent to U.S. states) approving a Swiss Peoples Party (SPP) proposal to deport any immigrants who have been convicted of certain serious crimes, such as murder, rape, drug dealing and severe welfare fraud, among others. Even hostile European Union bureaucrats called it a "populist" victory.
On Nov. 28, a more modest immigration ballot proposal from both legislative chambers of the Swiss parliament (the Federal Assembly) failed to garner the number of votes that the SPP version received.
The populist SPP, the largest of Switzerland's political parties, with about 30 percent of the national legislative seats, noted that the immigrant population commits more than half the nation's crimes - in a stable nation that has a low overall crime rate. Immigrants comprise no more than 20 percent of the population, and those from Nigeria and Kosovo tend to be the most crime-prone, Swiss citizens told AFP.
Above all, this vote is a victory for the dynamic Swiss electoral system in which various legislative proposals are decided by voters, and officials are understood to be duty bound to enforce the will of the people. EU bureaucrats who lust to consolidate the rest of Europe view the Swiss system wth contempt. The bureaucrats want the stubborn Swiss to adopt the euro, but they won't. The proud traditions of the Swiss, though under assault from outside and inside forces, have held their ground.
This AFP editor is visiting Switzerland to examine its electoral, monetary and military systems, which are considered unique throughout the world. Commenting on the electoral system that protects the populace from being steam rolled by the central government, a Swiss national said, "The voice of the people is the voice of god," is a common saying here.
As for controlling immigration, the fact that the Nov. 28 vote even took place shows that Switzerland - while maintaining high standards for those seeking Swiss citizenship and keeping its sovereignty intact in this chaotic age of globalization - has not been immune to the migration of eastern European, African and, to some extent, Muslim populations that have caused profound demographic and cultural changes in several European notions. It also shows the Swiss can do something about it.
On Nov. 29, The New York Times and Washington Post
quoted sources that labeled the SPP "xenophobic," "ultranationalist"
and "right wing." But they admitted that the SPP and
Switzerland's voters, due to the initiative's outcome, made impressive
progress in trying to correct a national wrong - something that
Arizona and other U.S. states might look to for courage when
they defy federal immigration laws and try to counteract illegal
immigration.
|Top|
This writer asked a point-blank question during a Nov. 19 interview: "Has it ever been proven that HIV causes AIDS?" Jon Rappoport, author of AIDS Inc., replied matter-of-factly: "No, never. There is no link. Nobody has ever been able to find HIV in sufficient quantities to cause any problems." According to Rappoport, an entire industry has arisen that is part of a much larger scheme.
He began: "This is a brave new world. If you want a global conspiracy, this is it. Governments can now tame the entire population with these concocted epidemics. Every time a patient is diagnosed and treated with toxic drugs, it leads to the deterioration of their immune systems."
He continued: "the medical establishment figured out how to construct a system where one epidemic after another is foisted onto the public. Their agenda is to push us toward a world where prescribed drugs are used to control the populace." their agenda is to push us toward a world where prescribed drugs are used to control the populace."
Rappoport posits that scientific filters exclude contrary ideas. He provided a historical perspective: "Prior to the AIDS syndrome, the power and influence of the CDC -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were on an extreme wane. HIV would therefore turn out to be a blockbuster, with research money soon available in huge amounts. The CDC and National Institutes of Health, or NIH immediately reclaimed their prestige."
Rappoport described how prior to becoming famous for his HIV-AIDS
hypothesis, Dr. 
Robert
Gallo worked at NIH as a cancer researcher specializing in retro
viruses. For years his work faltered until AIDS emerged on the
scene. Conveniently, research that had been going nowhere suddenly
had a cause. Gallo also patented an HIV antibody test that made
him fabulously wealthy.
Moreover, one day after Gallo's famous April 1984 announcement linking HIV to AIDS, all funding stopped for any alternative research. Rappoport explained that if scientists didn't get on the HIV bandwagon, grant money would go elsewhere.
Ignoring conventional wisdom, Rappoport has taken an entirely different approach. He told AFP: "there's no such thing as AIDS. Instead, ‘AIDS' has become an umbrella that covers a whole host of other conditions. What we should be examining is immune suppression."
Rather than a phantom virus, Rappoport chronicled how lifestyle, behavior and environment were (and still are) causing people to die. One high-risk group, intravenous drug users, often shares contaminated needles, and thus contract hepatitis B or experience liver failure.
Hemophiliacs, subjected to frequent transfusions in the days before testing, received blood contaminated with chemicals, hepatitis B and other tainted substances, which destroyed their immune systems.
Haitians, similar to Africans living in horrendously impoverished conditions, suffered from poor diets and unsanitary conditions that depleted their bodies.
The most controversial group that vehemently protested against any suggestion of lifestyle causes was homosexuals. However, evidence of a connection is undeniable. For starters, the 1960s sexual revolution led to a proliferation of homosexual bathhouses, all "ground zero" locales for high death rates.
In the movie House of Numbers, Brent Leung interviewed homosexual men, who said that syphilis, gonorrhea and parasites were rampant in these places. To counter the effect of diseases, Rappoport related ho antibiotic use among these individuals went through the roof and eventually suppressed their immune systems.
Furthermore, certain types of illegal drug use were wildly popular among homosexuals - despite warnings that they were flammable and fatal if swallowed. In essence, these chemically based toxins proved to be a lethal compound, and, as Rappoport said, "People started dropping like flies after their bodies burned out."
Due to their practices, homosexuals fell ill with pneumocystis pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma, both attributable to heavy drug use. But, since lifestyle explanations weren't politically acceptable, the many symptoms had to be blamed on a mystery virus.
Interestingly, many of the earliest homosexual men in the early 1980s to die from Kaposi's sarcoma never tested positive for HIV. Yet all these men were still classified under the AIDS umbrella.
Likewise, illnesses among heterosexual men and women who are promiscuous and have multiple partners - especially blacks - are growing.
The suggestion that "co-factors" other than HIV may be responsible for immune-deficiency deaths brings stern rebuttals from government-sponsored researchers.
Rappoport addressed this wall of denial: "A ‘mixed phenomenon' is totally taboo to the scientific community. Robert Gallo insists on only one label - AIDS - and only one cause - HIV - sao as to not confuse people. But the actual confusion starts with these HIV-AIDS labels."
He added: "I've known people who spoke with Gallo on
the phone abut co-factors, and he blew his top and started screaming.
After nearly 30 years, Gallo and his cohorts will never turn
back, regardless of the evidence. It'll never happen."
|Top|
As of Dec. 2, the total U.S. public debt outstanding reached an astonishing $13.8 trillion. This means that although Congress just raised the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion back in February, the new congress will face another debt ceiling vote almost immediately next year. Otherwise, the Treasury will not be able to continue issuing debt to fund government operations.
The upcoming vote will provide an interesting litmus test for the new Republican congressional majority, especially those new members closely identified with tea party voters. The debt ceiling law, assed in 1917, enables Congress to place a statutory cap on the total amount of government debt rather than having to approve each individual treasury bond offering. It also, however, forces congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote to approve more borrowing.
If the new Congress gives into establishment pressure and media alarmism about "shutting down the government" by voting to increase the debt ceiling once again, you will know that the status quo has prevailed. You will know that congress, despite the rhetoric of the midterm elections, is doing business as usual. You will know that the dimple notion of balancing the budget, by limiting federal spending to federal revenue, remains a shallow and laughable campaign platitude.
Of course congressional leaders - now Republicans - will tell America that they plan on balancing the budget soon, but they just need some time. After all, we have to keep the government open, right? We can't have an "emergency" shutdown of vital government services. But somehow Congress always finds money for emergency spending, in the form of supplemental appropriations bills for TARP bailouts, troop surges, and the like. Why is there never an emergency that justifies less spending?
Surely we are facing an emergency debt spiral, as evidenced by the federal Reserve's recent commitment to buy another round of treasury debt. It's now quite obvious that the U.S. Government plans to inflate tis way out of debt, and the wold is fleeing our dollar in response. Just seven years ago congress raise the debt ceiling to $6.4 trillion, which means the federal government had doubled it indebtedness in less than a decade. Annual deficits for 2011 and beyond are projected to be at least $1 trillion. By contrast, the entire federal debt amassed from the founding of our nation until President Reagan took office in 1981 - a period of roughly 200 years - was $1 trillion. So it's no exaggeration to state that federal debt is growing exponentially.
I have two simple proposals when the new Congress convenes in January. First, refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Find a way, month by month, for congress to spend only what the Treasury raises in revenue. Second, start over from scratch with the 13 appropriations bills that fund the federal government. Reject any talk of baseline budgets or discretionary spending. It is all discretionary, and members of both parties should vote against any 2012 appropriation bill that is not at least 10 percent smaller - in nominal dollars - than its 2011 counterpart.
A motivated Congress could begin to slow the tide of debt
by taking the simple stip of cutting federal spending by 10 percent
across the board for the next few years. Let's hope it does not
take the complete collapse of the U.S. dollar to provide this
motivation.
|Top|
Since Israel's brutal siege of Gaza and the recent deadly flotilla attack, its reputation has plummeted worldwide, including on American college campuses. Not content to respond with debate and mere Internet censorship, Israel's public relations front, the Anti-Defamation League (SDL), has been struggling to do what cowards do best: Make such criticism a hate crime.
The ADL's latest "anti-bullying" legislation, HR 6216, was submitted in October to the U.S. House of Representatives by these Jewish legislators - Sen. Arlen Specter and reps Brad Sherman and Elliot Engel - to end increasing criticism of Israel on American campuses. It would actually make such criticism, which creates :emotional distress: in Jewish students, illegal.
By adding religion to the protected classes in the Civil rights Act of 1964, this bill will criminalize general, repeated criticisms of broad issues around Jewish religion, politics and ethnicity. Like nothing else, the state of Israel epitomizes Jewish ethnicity and culture. Although this bill is only one page long and seems innocent, don't be deceived.
Hr 6216 violates the 14th Amendment by granting special rights and privileges to yet another group under the /Civil Rights Act. This addition is especially ominous for Christians because attorney general Holder admitted federal hate crimes law does not protec Christians but only Jews and other non-Christians,
ADL INVADES EDUCATION
Especially irked by the free speech growing at American universities, Jewish groups have already been pressuring the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) to outlaw "anti-semitism" on campus. They scored a major victory recently in persuading secretary of education Arne Duncan to issue detailed guidelines that in effect apply Title VI of the Civil rights act of 1964 to protect Jewish students on campus.
Just as the federal "hate" law last year designated homosexuals for special protection from hate crimes under the same Civil rights Act, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would have added the same protection to homosexuals and transgenders, the USDE now considers all members of the Jewish race in U.S. public education to be protected from "anti-Semitic" criticism. What does that mean? The guidelines say negative generalizations about Jewish behavior or ethnic characteristics on campus are now technically illegal.
But what if some "anti-Semitic" generalizations are true? Consider these true statements about most American Jews:
1) they are predominantly liberals, favoring abortion, homosexual
rights, evolution, banning Christian symbols in public places
etc.
2) THEY SUPPORT Israel'S policies against Palestinians.
3) they oppose virtually all aspects of the Christian conservative
political agenda, including incorporation of Christian moral
values in government.
4) they tend to gravitate toward positions of power and influence,
while usually avoiding military service.5) they reject Jesus
Christ and the need to repent and trust in Him in order to find
spiritual fulfillment.
So, according to USDE, it is now illegal for such general statements to be repeated on campus. It appears that any public education institution allowing such "hate" can lose federal funding. They can even face federally sanctioned lawsuits and indictment.
Rep. Sherman said, "The policy is now clear: colleges and universities will no longer be permitted to turn a blind eye when Jewish students face severe and persistent anti-Semitic hostility on their campuses." The guidelines also state that if any publicly supported school allows "hostility" against matters Jewish (perhaps criticism of Israel's siege of Gaza or the flotilla attack) it can be forced to create a reeducation program for the entire school. This is tyranny against free speech.
WILL CONGRESS UPHOLD DECREE?
Of course, cuncan's decree is unconstitutional. However, the USDE's Civil Rights Division has power to enforce the Civil Rights act, making federal hate criminals out of "anti-Semitic" students and faculty. But for the USDE decree to be most effectively enforced and to repel Constitutional challenge, it needs to be enshrined in federal law by act of Congress. That is why lovers of freedom mustmake absolutely sure this legislation is vigorously resisted now.
It represents the beginning of organized attempts to outlaw
criticism of Talmudic Judaism and Israel, not just in public
education but everywhere. If this bill is passed, it will be
a small step under the Civil rights Act to ban criticism of Jewish
issues in businesses of 20 or more employees, possibly including
churches. Such censorship could progress, as happened in ADL
hate-law countries, to outlaw "hateful speech" in all
of society! By that time, America would be under a speech-crime
regime with no regard for first amendment free-speech guarantees.
|Top|
Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs can save considerable
energy when used where lights stay on for at least two hours.
These popular, 
light-efficient
bulbs ultimately are poor choices, however.
Using them is a bad isea for children's bedrooms and playrooms because each bulb contains about 5 milligrams of mercury. That small amount can create high levels of vapor in the air if a DFL bulb breaks.
Because mercury is a toxin that affects the nervous system and can harm brain development in young children and fetuses - so pregnant women should avoid these bulbs, too - it is best to close doors and open windows for 15 minutes when on of these bulbs breaks. Then scrape up the bulb fragments, put them in a sealed glass jar (mercury can migrate though plastic) and take the jar to a hazardous waste collection site.
One CFL bulb user turned it on in his bathroom and after a few minutes smelled smoke. He said, "four-inch flames were spewing out of the side of the ballast like a blowtorch!" The ballast is the portion between the spirally would glass and the screw base.
He immediately turned the light off but felt sure that it would have caused a serious house fire if one of his children had left the room without turning it off as usual.
He took the damaged bulb to the local fire department and learned that holes in the side of the ballast, like those in his defective bulb, were common. Since the ballast can sometimes start a fire, several fire marshals have issued reports about the dangers of CFL bulbs in the wrong place, such as for recessed lighting and track lighting.
Glove CFL bulbs made in China had been causing most of the problems. Look for that label on the ballast. Any Chinese-made bulbs should be avoided, to be safe.
[Plug-in air deodorizers also have been shown to cause serious
fires. - Ed.]
|Top|
The public's growing concern about hormones and chemicals in commercial dairy farming in recent years has provoked an increasing demand for raw milk. During the past five years, Massachusetts doubled its raw milk dairies to a total of 24, and Washington state has nearly quadrupled, from six to 22, in only two years. In New York, where the product has bo be black-marketed because of laws prohibiting it, users have to be informed of the new, clandestine weekly "drop site" to purchase it off trucks.
The CDC and FDA treat raw milk as ifit will eradicate the human race, but by viewing the scene through the age-old filter of "the bottom line is always money," it does not take long to see the whole picture. The pasteurized milk industry is valued at around $25 billion.
Dr. William campbell douglas has led the fight against pasteurization for 30 years because, among other things, the process destroys good bacteria with the bad. He lists five arguments against pasteurization of milk.
1) when milk is pasteurized and homogenized, the structure
of the milk is altered. The lactose sugar is converted to beta-lactose,
a form that causes milk allergies.
2) If you have tried raw milk, you know pasteurized milk just
doesn't taste as good, because the "creaming ability"
of the milk is destroyed. Pasteurization destroys the souring
bacteria of the milk, causing it to putrefy if kept long enough,
instead of souring normally.
3) Pasteurization sucks the nutritional life out of raw milk.
The process diminishes the vitamin content and destroys vitamins
C. B6, and B12. Raw milk is an excellent source fo calcium; but
once it has been pasteurized, your body can no longer absorb
many of the nutrients that are left. Plus, the pasteurization
process destroys all the beneficial enzymes, hormones, antibodies
and fatty acids, such as cancer-fighting conjugated linoleic
acid.
4) Pasteurized milk can lead to a variety of health problems.
The most obvious evidence of this is that infants do not develop
well on it. Pasteurized milk is more likely than raw milk to
lead to arthritis, tooth decay, constipation, allergies, cancer
and osteoporosis, despite the dairy industry's advertising.
5) Pasteurization is not perfect. Most people are willing to
give up all the benefits of raw milk because of all of the bad
press about safety. But the truth is that when pasteurization
is carelessly done, it can result in bacterial infections that
can cause peptic ulcers.
Even the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) own statistics
on raw milk show itis safer for human consumption. According
to CDC figures, raw milk was responsible for a grand total of
two deaths and 1,007 illnesses (unconfirmed) between 1998 and
2007, while over the past few decades, the pasteurized product
has led to over 200,000 cases of food poisoning and over 600
deaths.
|Top|
Sometimes mainstream media reporters forget themselves and actually do in-depth investigative reporting. One recent example was when John Pruitt of Atlanta's WSB-TV noticed all the imported labels on the various packages of frozen fish in his local supermarket and began to ask questions. His shocking report is shaking up the nation through repetitive replays on the Internet.
In this age of ridiculous free-trade policies, where eating fish from thousands of miles away is somehow seen as superior to consuming fish from local waters, an enormous amount of our seafood is imported from "developing countries" - more than 80 percent in fact. At Pruitt's local store in Atlanta, the shrimp was from Thailand, the tuna from Indonesia, orange roughy was imported from China and the tilapia came from Costa Rica.
Why? It's the same old story - it's always about money. Imported fish can be bought for about one-third less than homegrown fish. The problem is the foreigners cut many corners regarding safety.
Upon seeing this video and hearing the news report, This AFP writer went straight to the refrigerator to check the label on the package of tilapia just placed in the freezer only an hour earlier. It turned out it was from Ecuador.
Alabama Agriculture Commissioner ron Sparks says the American people have no idea about the amount of seafood being imported into the United states, yet the FDA inspects and tests less than two percent of these imports. But worse yet, what little testing that is done often reveals banned chemicals and filthy contamination.
"If it's from a foreign country," says Sparks, "you should be very cautious. I wouldn't eat it.
Sparks was reported as actually witnessing fish farmed in sewage on a recent visit to Vietnam.
Consequently, Alabama may be the safest place in America today to buy fish in either a restaurant or a supermarket. Thanks to Sparks redoubling his efforts, Alabama is one of the few states to have a seafood safety testing program, and more than half of the fish tested there are rejected.
One of the things often found in the foreign fish is a fungicide called malachite Green. It's illegal to use in food because it causes cancer and birth defects, but the importers think that they simply won't get caught. Considering the lack of testing in most states, They are usually right.
Researchers say that the chemicals and poisons found in the
unclean fish may not harm anyone immediately, but eaten over
a long period of time the substances pose a significant health
risk.
|Top|
We have been scammed again. This time it's the food fascists using a bogus salmonella scare to establish another branch on the monopoly tree - dirty eggs supposedly needing to be "pasteurized."
This appears to be a calculated, three-pronged attack on food sanitation and safety. Firs, "they" want to continue factory farming their filthy eggs by the millions to rake in the cash from the mind-numbed general public. You see, it's too much to ask that large contract producers clean up their act. We can't have that, instead we must step aside and let food conglomerates have their way.
But at least more and more smart consumers have gone to free-range and organic poultry despite the higher cost, as well they should.
For their part, the bureaucrats made sure that this summer's so-called salmonella outbreak become overly hyped and unquestioned by the prostitutes in the corporate media, thus opening the doors for patent-protected "pasteurized" eggs.
You were not alone if you scratched your head at the mention of "pasteurized" eggs - soft boiled likely came to mind. Under the radar for decades, some patents for sterilizing eggs with heat and hydrogen peroxide have been around to serve manufacturers of mayonnaise and other raw-egg based products.
However, this new patent is a real doozy, and you can count on the patent getting monopoly blessings and enforcements. In America, "market forces" are really forced markets, as government and media team up with big business to reduce our choices and channel money to privileged interests. Let no more be said about America having a "free market." It doesn't.
The third prong of this scam (taken from the Internet at National Pasteurized Eggs) has already been FDA-approved - so you know it was waiting in the wings for the recent salmonella scare to launch against an unsuspecting public.
In the 1980s, two brothers from Lynden, Washington invented the latest method for sterilizing eggs without cooking them. Then in the early 1990s, L. John Davidson got the rights and developed National Pasteurized eggs, Inc. of Lansing, Illinois as the "exclusive provider" of pasteurized shell eggs for makers of mayonnaise and other egg-based products.
It won't be long before supermarkets will require these pasteurized
eggs - labeled as such, of course - and they will be hyped as
"much safer" to eat - even better than organic eggs
according to false media hype. But don't fall for it. Buy eggs
from your neighborhood farmer or stick to organic, free-range
eggs in the stores, unless of course you raise your own chickens.
|Top|
Imagine the following ridiculous imaginary scene from a G-rated family movie or mainstream product advertisement for a moment, with the dialog going something like this:
Mom: "Children, if you don't eat your rat poison and drink it down with this engine degreaser three times a day, you are going to be punished by having to stay home from the circus on Saturday."
Children: "Okay, mom, we will. We don't wanna miss the circus, and besides this new flavor of poison you bought today really tastes good!"
Perhaps a little too absurd for a movie, but let's look at reality.
One of the most damaging products available in your local pharmacy or grocery store is also one of the best-selling products. In fact, it is a product used by nearly every person daily and one that will provoke punishment by some parents if their children do not use it morning and night.
But how many would actively promote such folly if they knew
the toxins in their toothpaste have been repeatedly linked to
cancer, 
blindness and early
death? Too many parents have paid no attention to the federal
requirement for the disclaimer on each toothpaste tube and package
that warns: "If accidentally swallowed, seek immediate medial
help or call a poison control center."
It's a fact. The toothpaste in your bathroom cabinet could kill you under a certain series of events. Many popular toothpastes and mouthwashes contain harmful ingredients, made up of tiny molecules that penetrate through the tissue of your mouth, enter the blood stream, and build up in the liver, kidneys, heart and other organ tissue.
Sodium fluoride, the use of which is actually defended by the extremely misguided dental community, is one of the main ingredients in nearly every toothpaste sold, but fluoride is used as well in rat and cockroach poisons.
Most people believe that toothpaste and many mouth rinses contain fluoride because that's what dentists have recommended for years to prevent cavities. What most don't know is that recent research now shows that the most popular toothpastes contain enough fluoride in four ounces to potentially kill a child within a few hours, depending on circumstances.
In children, minimal ingestion of sodium fluoride causes nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and diarrhea. Large doses of this known carcinogen can cause muscular weakness and paralysis, followed by respiratory and cardiac failure. If that isn't enough, sodium fluoride is a key ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic an psychiatric drugs. According to CWBInfo.com, an online clearing house for information on chemical and biological weapons, it is also a chemical precursor for sarin nerve gas. This is why the warning on your toothpaste tube is so adamant about keeping the product away from children.
While dentist have claimed since WWII that sodium fluoride prevents tooth decay, there is plenty of contradictory scientific evidence demonstrating that fluoride does no such thing and fluoride is linked to tooth and gum deformity, arthritis, allergic reactions and thousands of unnecessary deaths each year from cancer.
Other dangerous chemicals and substances found in most over-the-counter toothpastes include sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), which is common in floor cleaners and engine degreasers, and a popular pesticide triclosan, which kills beneficial bacteria.
Another is glycerin. It coats the tooth and completely halts the process of re-enamelization. Worse, glycerin is so sticky that it takes 27 washes to get it off the surface of a tooth. Use a product containing glycerin one a month and your teeth may never re-mineralize again.
The ingredients in almost all common toothpastes increase
acid wear on teeth and gums. Acidic saliva erodes and de-mineralizes
tooth enamel, causing cavities and increased heat and cold sensitivity.
|Top|
When Cyndi Steele, the wife of
imprisoned lawyer Edgar J. Steele, first heard that her husband
had been arrested and charged with hiring their handyman to have
her and her mother killed, she simply didn't believe it. Then,
as FBI agents attempted to persuade her to accept the nonsensical
"plot," she became suspicious of the agency and went
into seclusion.
Mrs. Steele recently spoke with AFP in an exclusive interview, relating how she now believes her husband was framed.
Steele has been held in solitary confinement since his arrest on June 11, 2010. In October, Mrs. Steele was finally allowed to visit with him.
"The FBI lied to me from the beginning," said Mrs. Steele, explaining how FBI agents accused her of cheating on her husband. "First they claimed they had a private investigator who had pictures of me and my boyfriend together, but I knew they couldn't, because there is no boyfriend. Finally, they admitted they had made that up and then jumped over to the next lie: that Ed had a Russian girlfriend, and that's why he wanted to kill me. They just kept trying to intimidate me into believing their own lies."
A more likely scenario might be that Steele was targeted because of his history defending the politically incorrect in court.
Unbeknownst to the Steeles, the man at the center of the crime, handyman Larry Fairfax, had been a longtime FBI informant when the Steeles hired him last December. Steele had been recuperating from a near-fatal heart operation at his home in Idaho. It's believed the FBI had re-enlisted Fairfax to spy on Steele when he told them where he was working. However, when Fairfax was unable to turn up anything incriminating, the feds resorted to more drastic measures.
Fairfax claims that Steele had offered him $25,000 to murder Mrs. Steele and her mother. According to Fair fax, this amount and "maybe even more" would be paid after Steele collected on the life insurance. Conveniently, because the mother-in-law resides in Oregon, the "crime" qualified for federal jurisdiction under the FBI.
Mrs . Steele has finally brought to the table the piece of evidence that has the federal prosecutors scrambling for yet another new motive: There is no life insurance. The Steeles had canceled it after the last child left home a few years ago. Another perplexing point is the mystery man who rode with Fairfax to the Oregon home of Mrs. Steele's mother to inspect and possibly install the pipe bomb discovered under Mrs. Steele's car.
Mrs. Steele's attorney Wesley Hoyt received an anonymous tip naming the accomplice as James Maher, a neighbor and friend of Fairfax. When Hoyt and client played the tip for federal prosecutor Tracy Whelan, she admitted that Maher was the ride-along friend but claimed he had done nothing wrong.
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|
LATEST IN AN ONGOING SERIES Yes, the Rothschild dynasty-connected billionaire families and financial groups who own the mass media in America—interlocked with the banking interests controlling privately owned Federal Reserve System that dominates the world economic system—are planning to spring a "centrist" third party on the American people.
All-new revelations now appearing in the self-styled "mainstream" press fully confirm what AMERICAN FREE PRESS—alone among the media—first asserted seven months ago in a four-page exclusive special report published in its May 31 issue.
The opinion pages of the two most powerful newspapers in America—The New York Times and The Washington Post —have been rife with repetitive rhetoric about the need for the American people to reject both "the left" and "the right" and stand behind "centrists," who will "end partisan gridlock." But there has also been—behind the scenes—an ongoing, long-standing, carefully crafted scheme to set a "centrist" party in motion.
As AFP noted on Nov. 15, the first formal notice came in The New York Times on Oct. 3, when influential columnist Thomas L. Friedman, generally perceived as a "liberal," noted grandly in a column entitled "Third Party Rising" that he knew of two separate efforts to launch such a "centrist" movement which he made clear was something he endorsed. Friedman tantalized readers by mentioning no specific names, but it was clear Friedman was writing from an "insider" standpoint.
On Nov. 28, writing in The Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning "conservative" writer Kathleen Parker finally and formally lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding the third party venture in a commentary entitled, "Who will lead the centrists?" Her column revealed a new group, called "No Labels," was being launched. Asserting "dissatisfaction with Washington's systemic failings," Ms. Parker wrote that "when the porridge is either too hot or too cold, the moment for something in between is ripe," adding that "centrism has a place at the table by virtue of the sheer numbers of middle Americans, the depth of their disgust and the magnitude of our problems."
Ms. Parker concluded that "There's little appealing about either party dominated by a base that bears little resemblance to who we are as a nation or the way most of us live our lives. . . ." She then asked the question: "What if there were an alternative?" and added pointedly:
"All that's missing from a centrist movement that could be formidable is a leader. Anyone?"
The Post columnist noted that among the key financial backers of No Labels is James Tisch. Although grass-roots Americans who might be attracted to a "third" party alternative probably don't recognize his name, Tisch is a member of the billionaire family which grabbed control of the CBS media conglomerate in 1986, asserting its purpose was to ensure especially favorable coverage of Israel at a time of growing uneasiness with Israel's Middle East intrigues.
An influential figure beyond question, Tisch has been president of the Jewish Communal Fund, was founding chairman of the Jewish Leadership Forum and serves on the executive committee of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign-policy-making arm of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
To underscore the importance of the No Labels venture, The Washington Post followed up Ms. Parker's commentary by one published on Dec. 3 under the title "A grass-roots answer to gridlock," written by two of the high-level founders of No Labels.
The two figures in question—a "liberal" Democrat and a "conservative" Republican—demonstrate the ostensible bipartisan (and distinctly internationalist) nature of the "centrist" effort: David Frum, a former special assistant and speechwriter to President George W. Bush and William Galston, a former domestic policy advisor to Bill Clinton.
Frum—a neo-conservative pro-Israel hard-liner (and hardly a "centrist")—is infamous for coining the term "Axis of Evil," which he inserted into a speech he wrote for Dubya Bush, who popularized the phrase as part of the "war on terrorism." But, more notably, Frum once published an extended attack on nationalists who reject American globalism and warmongering (which just happen to be the central components of the New World Order agenda).
Likewise, the ties of Frum's No Labels colleague, Galston, further illustrate the origins of the "centrist" scheme being unleashed. Galston is now a courtier to the publicly little-known, but globally influential Rothschild- allied billionaire Zilkha family and holds the chair in "governance studies" at the Brookings Institution, a post funded by Baghdad-born New York-based Ezra Zilkha, another key figure in the Council on Foreign Relations.
The heir to Khedori Zilkha—once described by The New York Sun as "a towering figure who bestrode the financial landscape of the Middle East, Europe, America and Asia and became an important player in international banking"—Ezra Zilkha was described by the Sun as "a living legend" in his own right, who assessed his own ancestry thusly: "My family were proud members of the Jewish community that Nebuchadnezzar established. When the Babylonian captivity ended and many Jews returned to Jerusalem, my ancestors stayed behind. I am always conscious of history. My sensibilities are rooted in antiquity."
In their Post commentary, Galston and Frum announced that No Labels is engaged in organizing in every state and congressional district and that there will be a major national meeting held in New York on Dec. 13. They also revealed the underlying propaganda nature of their program. Over the next two years, No Labels operatives will be taking to task any and all who do not abide by their agenda. According to Galston and Frum:
They will highlight those officials who reach across the aisle to help solve the country's problems and criticize those who do not. They will call out politicians whose rhetoric exacerbates those problems, and they will establish lines that no one should cross. Politicians, media personalities and opinion leaders who recklessly demonize their opponents should be on notice that they can no longer do so with impunity. . . .
In short, the purpose of No Labels will be to enforce a new "political correctness" enforced by public and media pressure, ensuring that anyone who goes beyond the approved "pale" and ventures into rhetoric and political discussion deemed unseemly will be held to account, subjected to widespread opprobrium.
For example, those who question the official government version of the 9-11 terrorist tragedy, or raise concerns about U.S. bias in favor of Israel in the conduct of Middle East policy, or object to unending budget-busting foreign military ventures, will be savaged as inimical to American national interests.
Frum and Galston claimed No Labels is "not a nascent third-party movement" nor a "stalking-horse for an independent candidacy" and that "it is not a front for anyone's agenda." However, the obvious political nature of the venture—which includes the formation of political action committee fundraising efforts—belies these protests. No Labels is clearly what it appears to be, another attempt to internationalize and bankrupt America with Israel coming out on top.
A review of the No Labels website at nolabels.com lists a growing array of "advisors" who constitute a broad-ranging selection of journalists, pundits and publicists— few nationally known but all of whom have outreach in their own particular realms. And this marks a movement that could be especially influential.
The clique of media voices promoting the "centrist" movement has been hyping rhetoric referencing "American national greatness" and "American exceptionalism"—which rings soundly in the hearts of patriotic Americans—but these are terms that have a deeper meaning than might appear.
In fact, these terms have their origins in the writings of a host of so-called "ex-Trotskyite" agitators—now called "neo-conservatives"—who have energetically worked to suppress traditional American nationalism in the effort to remake the United States into a globe-straddling empire with the blood and treasure of the American people used to set in place a New World Order. The "conservative" internationalists and the "liberal" internationalists have bound together to work to bring this into being, and the "centrist" endeavor is at the foundation of what can only be described as a conspiracy, vastly inimical to America's interests.
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|
SPOTLIGHT ON CONGRESS
AS THE CLOCK TICKS DOWN on the lame duck session, liberal Democrats are becoming desperate to sneak through their dangerous pet bills before they lose control of Congress, and they are not above stooping to dirty tricks to make it happen.
Shortly before the midterm elections,
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised Latinos that if they voted
for him he would make sure his Development, Relief and Education
for Alien Minors, or "DREAM," Act is passed by Congress
and sent to the White House. Among other things, Reid's nightmarish
DREAM would legalize the children of illegal immigrants who are
currently living in the United States if they seek higher education
or join the U.S. military. According to published reports, this
bill could benefit an estimated 2.1 million illegal immigrants,
at a cost to taxpayers of over $20 billion.
On Dec. 8 the House passed DREAM by a vote of 216 to 198. The measure was buried in an innocuous bill on litigation reform. That House legislation was titled "the Removal Clarification Act of 2010" (H.R. 5281), and it was introduced to deal with lawsuits in federal courts. The next day, however, Reid could not muster a vote in the Senate.
BYPASSING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
The problem for Reid and his cohorts is that Republicans and conservative Democrats have already come out publicly in opposition to the bill. So what are they to do? They are trying to bypass the Judiciary Committee to get the bill directly to the floor for a vote. And what better way to do this than to enter the legislation into Congress multiple times so that if one effort fails, left-wing legislators can keep trying until they succeed. That's exactly what is happening with DREAM.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Reid's second in command, has introduced the DREAMAct no less than four times since September. Worse still, some of the bills have additional amnesty provisions for parents or relatives of those children who would get citizenship.
On Sept. 22, Durbin entered in the first DREAM Act (S. 3827). Then he introduced the bill three more times (S. 3962, S. 3963 and S. 3992) between Nov. 17 and Nov. 30.
Republicans say Durbin did this in a cynical attempt to get any one of them to the Senate floor for a vote. All four versions have the same problems, say Republicans, but the Democrats don't care. They are just trying to sow confusion. In late November, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee released the following press release on the multiple DREAM bills:
Democrat leaders, in their rush to pass an unpopular bill during the lame-duck session, have completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee. They have introduced four separate versions of the same bill and, without any committee review, placed each and every one of them on the legislative calendar. . . . This unusual approach creates a chaotic situation, one that makes it more difficult for the public and their representatives—as well as the press—to review this deeply controversial measure.
AMERICAN FREE PRESS will continue to monitor this legislation as the lame duck session winds down. With less than a month to go, it remains doubtful that Democrats will be able to sneak the bill through, but there is a long history of bad bills seeing the light of day around the holidays when most Americans are thinking more about family and the Christmas spirit than Washington politics at its worst.
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|
Virginia state House Speaker Bill Howell (R) says he plans to ask the state Legislature to join 27 other states in calling for a Federal Constitutional Convention, or "Con-Con."
Such an event appears to be several years in the future, as it requires 38 state legislatures to force a Con-Con as provided by the U.S. Constitution. But it is wise to become aware of a Con-Con's great potential and possible hazards. Whatever a Con-Con approves would also have to be approved by 38 states to become a constitutional amendment.
But there is also a distinct possibility that a Con-Con could become a con job and have bad results. Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist institution, energetically opposed a Con-Con. All state legislatures, when joining in the call for a Con-Con to amend the national Constitution, include instructions that their representatives support only one issue, which is placed on the agenda.
A balanced budget amendment, which 43 states have in their own constitutions, is the dominant issue should a Con-Con be convened. Obviously, this could be a positive idea for the national government.
But some constitutional scholars claim that a Con-Con cannot be limited and could take various positions on a host of unforeseen issues. It could, they say, vote to drastically alter or eliminate the existing Constitution itself and impose a socialist government, regardless of the original reason the Con-Con was convened. The stakes are especially high in today's volatile atmosphere.
So, these scholars suggest, before electing someone to represent your state at a Con-Con, require your delegate to swear under oath that he or she will take the position mandated by the state legislature and vote only on the sole issue at hand—while abstaining on any others that emerge. Put him or her at risk of criminal perjury. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court's four "strict constructionists" regarding the Constitution, suggested in a speech at the University of Richmond (Va.) on Nov. 19 that a Con-Con could be a means of restoring the Constitution as written by the nation's founders. He cited Supreme Court rulings against the death penalty.
When the Eighth Amendment was written, Scalia said, the founders could not possibly have believed capital punishment to be "cruel and unusual punishment," because horse thieves were commonly hanged.
Also, the constitutional process for confirming a new Supreme Court justice has turned into a "mini constitutional convention" as nominees are tested on how they would interpret—or effectively rewrite—the Constitution, Scalia opined.
"Scalia is exactly right," state Rep. Howell said. "If society has changed, the legislature can change that, as the framers certainly did provide a way of amending the Constitution."
AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary: One Man's 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker's experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
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 Dec. 1, the Federal Reserve was forced to disgorge detailed information on emergency lending programs that involved among other things, trillions of dollars worth of loans it made at near zero percent interest to financial institutions between 2007 and 2010. Experts are still poring over the disorganized data dump, but so far, what has been uncovered is a treasure trove of once-secret information on sweetheart deals that benefited not only Wall street and big business, but even foreign banks and multinational corporations.
The privately owned and controlled U.S. central bank was required to produce the details on 11 emergency lending programs thanks to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which was passed last summer. Fed officials, including Chairman Ben bernanke, had tried to keep the information from the public, but it was forced to compromise or risk a full audit of the entire bank.
So, on Dec. 1, the Fed handed government auditors and the public data on at least 21,000 transactions that were conducted between the Fed and multiple banks and private corporations. The detailed information on the loans, asset guarantees and liquidity swaps is available for anyone to see on the Fed's website at federalreserve.gov. As the fed notes, the details include "the name of the borrower, the amount borrowed, the date the credit was extended, the interest rate charged, information about collateral and other relevan credit terms."
Media outlets, including American Free Press, are now just beginning to sift through the unorganized information, but what has been found so far - to put it simply - can only be described as staggering.
According to one report, the Fed handed out anywhere from
$3 trillion to as much as $9 trillion in financial aid to some
of the biggest wall Street firms. These included Merrill Lynch,
Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, which each received $2 trillion
in short-term loans at near zero percent interest, and Bank of
America and Goldman Sachs, which were given three-quarters of
a billion dollars in loans each. This was in addition to payments
that were given to these financial institutions as part of the
Troubled Asset Relief Program as well as backdoor taxpayer bailouts
through insurance payouts and other benefits.
The Fed claims that these short-term, or overnight, loans were all paid back. But it is worth noting that Merrill Lynch did not survive even with the massive cash infusion and was eventually gobbled up by Bank of America for pennies on the dollar in an all-stock transaction.
Even more troubling was the amount of money that was handed out to foreign financial institutions by the U.S. central bank.
From Ireland to Australia, foreign banks came rapping on the Fed's window, asking for aid. Some of the larger transactions included German Deutsche Bank Securities, which was loaned $290 billion, and London's Barclay's, which received a $47.9 billion loan. France's BNP Paribas Securities, Switzerland's UBS Securities LLC, Ireland's Allied Irish Bank and Daiwa Securities America also were given cash infusions.
The Fed's data also revealed that some of the world's largest corporations benefited from loans and guarantees from the central bank, including Verizon and MdDonalds. General Electric even received a special loan from the central bank. Ironically, it should be noted that GE's own media outlet, NBC News, never bothered to report on this.
These latest findings lend more credence to claims made by Now York reporters Bob Ivry and Mark Pittman, who compiled data to show that the Fed and the U.S. government has handed out at least $13 trillion in backdoor bailouts, asset guarantees, low-interest-rate loans, free money and other benefits to the Money Trust.
Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of the original authors of the audit portion of the Wall Street reform bill, characterized the Fed's data as "jaw dropping," but said this still leaves Americans with more questions than answers.
"This is a major victory for the American taxpayer and for transparency in government," said Sanders in a public statement. But this is only the beginning, he added.
"We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy," said
Sanders. "What we are seeing is the incredible power of
a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest
getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while
ignoring the needs of the people."
|Top|
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the U.S. central bank must purchase more than a half trillion dollars worth of U.S. debt to keep the government operating. That's like forcing a starving prisoner to cut off parts of his body so that the parasites that have been devouring him don't miss their next meal.
To show haw far the mighty have fallen on Thanksgiving China Daily and the Peoples Daily reported that Russia and China dumped the U.S. dollar and reached a bilateral trade agreement. American Free Press detailed this agreement in the Dec. 6 & 13 issue, reporting that China had made a similar arrangement with Brazil. Chinese officials said they would rather have Russian rubles and Brazilian reals than U.S. Federal Reserve notes.
Who wouldn't?
What does this portend for you? During September and October, such commodity staples as cotton had already risen by 54 percent; corn had climbed 29 percent, soybeans 22 percent, orange juice 17 percent and sugar 51 percent.
These steep rises in commodity prices have not shown up in supermarkets yet, because none of the big food corporations wants to be the first to raise prices do dramatically. But they can't continue to sell at the same price when the items they need to make their products are soaring in price.
The national Inflation Association (NIA), a financial organization that monitors the decline in value of the Federal reserve note dollar, estimates that the average grocery store pricing system could soon command $11.43 for one ear of corn, $23.05 for a 24-ounce loaf of bread, $62.21 for a 32-ounce package of granulated sugar, $24.31 for a 32-fluid ounce container of soymilk, $77.71 for an 11,3-ounce container of Folgers coffee, $45.71 for a 64-fluid ounce container of Orange juice and $15.50 for a 1.55-ounce milk chocolate candy bar. NIA also projects that by the end of this decade, a plain man's cotton T-shirt at Wal-Mart could cost $55.57.
America must adopt an honest money system, such as that advocated
by the American Monetary Institute, and repudiate the debt extorted
from our ancestors and us and demand restitution from the banksters
who make Bernie Madoff look like a doddering old man, who dabbled
in chump change.
|Top|
Early 20th-Century Populist William Jennings Bryan once remarked, "no one can make a million dollars honestly." Of course, with the national debt growing by $1 million every minute today, a million bucks is not what it used to be. Still, for most Main Street Americans, a million dollars remains a huge sum of money and is far beyond their reach. But that is not the case for an increasing number of elected representatives in Washington where nearly a quarter of the84 newly elected republican legislators are worth at least a cool million. And with these new additions to the millionaires club, more than half of all legislators in Congress today - 261 to be exact - have a net worth of a million dollars or more. Remember that these are the guys who are supposed to be championing the populist, working-class American, tea-party rebellion in the nation's capital.
In early December, AFP pored over the personal financial disclosure forms filed in each state by newly elected congressmen. Out of the 84 new Republican members of the House, the chart in column two shows the top earners, along with their net worth.
And just for the record, the congressional leadership is already full of millionaires and multimillionaires. Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is worth $60 million, while incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is sitting on $1.7 million in assets. Current majority leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), is worth between $650,000 and $1 million. He will be replaced by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has a net worth of $6.5 million.
Compare that to the general public, where less than 1 percent of the U.S. population is a millionaire. That amounts to only 3 million millionaires outof over 300 million citizens.
You can imagine how out of touch our elected "representatives"
are with those they are supposed to be representing in Washington.
|Top|
What's more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding or lack therof of both freedom and the purpose of government.
Thomas Jefferson - and the rest
of America's founders - believed that freedom was the principal
possession of man, because liberty is a divine - not a human
- gift.
Jefferson could not be clearer: America's founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain and instituting new government, Jefferson et al. did not intend to erect an idol government that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom's protection was the object.
Jefferson is clear: People have a right to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes destructive to liberty. To America's founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: "to secure these rights." When any form of government stops protecting sacred, god-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties - even going so far as to abolish that government.
To America's founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government.
Today's brand of patriotism - at least as expressed by many - is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I'm talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the ideal that government is a panacea for all our ill; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!
When government stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a "destructive" power, and needs to be altered or abolished.
Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognized that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not bo be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?
Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the system. Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the "powers that be" makes us good Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging.
Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a president or being loyal to a political party, or anything of a sort.
As to loyalty to a president merely because he is president, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth - whether about the president or anyone else."
As I asked at the beginning of this column, What's more important:
freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant
to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding
principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand
that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate
need of replacement. And whatever, however and whenever that
replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as the
liberty is preserved.
|Top|
The Reaction to WikiLeaks and
its founder, Julian Assange, tells us all we need to know abut
the total corruption of our "modern" world, which in
fact is a throwback to the dark ages. Some member of the U.S.
government released to WikiLeaks the documents that are now controversial.
The documents are controversial because they are official U.S.
documents and show all too clearly that the government is a duplicitous
entity whose raisom d' étre is to control every
other government.
The media, not merely in the U.S. but also throughout the English-speaking world and Europe, has shown tis hostility to WikiLeaks. The reason is obvious: WikiLeaks reveals truth, while the media covers up for the U.s. government and its puppet states.
Why would anyone with a lick of sense read the media when they can read original material from WikiLeaks? The average american reporter and editor must be very angry that his own cowardice is do clearly exposed by Assange. The American media is a whore, whereas the courageous blood of warriors runs through WikiLeaks' veins.
Just as American politicians want U.S. military whistle blower Bradley Manning executed because he revealed crimes of the U.S. government, they want assange executed. In the past few days the more notorious in Congress have denounced Assange as a :traitor to America." What total ignorance. Assange is an Australian, not an American citizen. To be a traitor to America, one has to be of the nationality. An Australian cannot be a traitor to America any more than an American can be a traitor to Australia. But don't expect the morons who represent the lobbyists to know this much.
Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher who was governor of Arkansas and, to America's already overwhelming shame, was third runner up to the Republican presidential nomination, has called for Assange's execution. So here we have a "man of God" calling for the U.S. government to murder an Australian citizen. And Americans wonder why the rest of the world hates their guts.
The material leaked from the U.S. government to WikiLeaks shows that the U.S. government is an extremely disreputable gang of gangsters. The U.S. government was able to get british Prime Minister Gordon brown to "fix" the UK's official investigation into how former Prime Minister Tony blair manipulated and led the British government into being mercenaries for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. One of the "diplomatic" cables released has UK defense Ministry official Jon Day promising the United States government that Prime Minister brown's government has "put measures in place to protect your interests."
Other cables show the U.S. government threatening Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero, ordering him to stop his criticisms of the Iraq war or else. I mean, really, how dare these foreign governments think that they are sovereign.
Not only foreign governments are under the U.S. thumb. So is Amazon.com. Sen. Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, who is Israel's most influential senator in the Senate, delivered sufficiently credible threats to amazon to cause the company to oust WikiLeaks content from its hosting service.
So there you have it. On the one hand the U.S. government and the prostitute American media declare that there is nothing new in the hundreds of thousands of documents, yet on the other hand both pull out all stops to shut down WikiLeaks and its founder. Obviously, despite the U.S. government's denials, the documents are extremely damaging. The documents show that the U.S. government is not what it pretends to be.
Assange is now incarcerated. He fears CIA and Mossad assassination, and to add to his troubles the government of Sweden has changed its mind, perhaps as a result of American persuasion and money, about sex charges that the Swedish government had previously dismissed for lack of credibility. If reports are correct, two women, who possibly could be CIA or Mossad assets, have brought sexual assault charges against Assange. One claims that she was having consensual sexual intercourse with him, but that he didn't stop when she asked him to.
Would a real government that had any integrity and commitment to truth try to blacken the name of the prime truth teller of our time on the basis of such flimsy charges?
Obviously, Sweden has become another two-bit punk puppet government of the U.S. and Israel.
The U.S. government has got away with telling lies for so long that it no longer hesitates to lie in the most blatant way. WikiLeaks released a U.S. classified document signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that explicitly orders U.S. diplomats to spy on UN Security Council officials and on the secretary general of the United Nations. The cable is now in the public record. No one challenges its authenticity. Yet, recently the Obama regime, precisely White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, declared that Hillary had never ordered or even asked U.S. officials to spy on UN officials.
Anyone who believes the U.S. government about anything is
the epitome of gullibility.
|Top|
We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the WikiLeaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media.
At its core, the WikiLeaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neo-conservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such info.
No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House of the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The fact is that our foreign spying, meddling and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often "official" government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and millions of resulting deaths and casualties.
Take the recent hostilities in Korea as only one example. More than 50 years after the end of the Korean War, American taxpayers continue to spend billions for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military places American lives between the two factions. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, drain our empty treasury and put our military at risk.
The neo-conservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion or civic and social institutions rather than an all-powerful central government. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neo-conservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves - namely their great protector, the state.
This is why the neo-conservative reaction to the WikiLeaks revelations is so predictable: "see, we told you the world was a dangerous place," goes the story. They claim we must prosecute - or even assassinate - those responsible for publishing the leaks. And we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better, with no more leaks.
We should view the WikiLeaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy.
We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue
and military intervention can maintain our international status
as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy
of debt and monetary debasement.
|Top|
International financiers
are subtly pursuing their goal of global government, under cover
of darkness. They plan to keep the world in a recession at least
through 2011 so hungry people will accept world rule to avoid
starvation. Their efforts are exposed in their own words, during
unguarded moments. "If all goes according to plan, the UN
Framework Commission Convention on Climate Change will establish
a global framework," the Bilderberg-controlled Washington
Post reported from a UN meeting in Cancun, Mexico Dec. 8.
Post publishers have attended every secret Bilderberg meeting since the 1950s, on a promise to report nothing. Since 1954, the Bilderberg group, with the collaboration of the mainstream corporate media, has been meeting behind closed and heavily guarded doors, to make decisions affecting virtually everyone on Earth. "They are ripe for the harvest," Brazilian climate official Sergio Serra said during the meeting in Mexico, referring to efforts to establish a global department of energy and climate under the UN.
"We know deforestation is a global problem, and the only way to address that is with an international mechanism," said Rebecca Chacko, attending for the environmental group Conservation International.
"Now we finally have a moment where, if we're successful, we can move forward." World government is also being pushed on the "peace front." At a summit in Lisbon, Portugal, NATO announced it would fight terrorism "around the globe," as members advocated a world defense ministry under the UN. The White House said this was a "full embrace" of Obama's views.
Creating "world treasury" and "world defense" departments would be a giant step toward global government, advocates believe. Another step is creating an "American Union" covering the Western Hemisphere, similar to the European Union, through expanding "trade agreements." European Union member states surrendered their sovereignty by becoming EU members. Switzerland, as AFP has reported, has so far resisted EU membership—a good thing since the European Parliament imposes laws and taxes on distant member states, and the European Court overrules national courts.
Globalists also are fighting to save the euro, which is threatened by Europe's economic crisis. This is important because a nation's currency is a symbol of sovereignty which "nationalists" fight to maintain. Britain refuses to accept the euro and uses its own coin. The Swiss also have kept their franc. "With the fiscal turmoil escalating across much of the euro zone, the currency has entered an uncertain period," The Post reported from Berlin. "Some still fear that the currency could destabilize in the coming weeks and months."
AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary: One Man's 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker's experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
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|
Why does the FBI orchestrate fake "terror plots"? The latest one snared Osman Mohamud, a Somali-American teenager in Portland, Ore. The Associated Press report is headlined: "Somali-born teen plotted car-bombing in Oregon."
This is a misleading headline as the report makes it clear that it was a plot orchestrated by federal agents. Two sentences into the news report we have this: "The bomb was an elaborate fake supplied by the FBI agents and the public was never in danger, authorities said." The teenager was supplied with a fake bomb and a fake detonator.
Three sentences later the reporters contradict the quoted authorities with a quote from Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon: "The threat was very real."
The reporters then contradict Balizan: "White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said Saturday that President Barack Obama was aware of the FBI operation before Friday's arrest. Shapiro said Obama was assured that the FBI was in full control of the operation and that the public was not in danger."
Then Shapiro contradicts himself by declaring: "The events of the past 24 hours underscore the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad." The story arrives at its Kafkaesque high point when Obama thanks the FBI for its diligence in saving us from the fake plot the FBI had fabricated. After vacillating between whether they are reporting a real plot or an orchestrated one, the reporters finally come down on the side of orchestration. Documents released by U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton "show the sting operation began in June."
Obviously, the targeted Portland teenager was not "hot to trot," so the FBI had to work on him for six months. The reporters compare "the Portland sting" to the recent arrest in Virginia of Faroque Ahmed, who was ensnared in a "bombing plot that was a ruse conducted over the past six months by federal officials."
Think about this carefully. The FBI did a year's work in order to convince two people to participate in fake plots.
If you are not too bright and some tough-looking guys accost you and tell you that they are al Qaeda and expect your help in a terrorist operation, you might be afraid to say no, or you might be thrilled to be part of a blowback against an American population that is indifferent to their government's slaughter of people of your ethnicity or religion in your country of origin. Whichever way it falls, it is unlikely the ensnared person would ever have done anything beyond talk had the FBI not organized them into action.
In other cases the FBI entices people with money to participate in its fake plots. Since 9-11, the only domestic "terrorist plot" that I recall that was not obviously organized by the FBI is the "Times Square plot" to which Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to trying to set off a car bomb in Manhattan. This "plot," too, is suspicious. One would think that a real terrorist would have a real bomb, not a smoke bomb. In his May 19, 2009 article, Joe Quinn of online site, Sott.net, collects some of the fake plots, some of which were validated by tortured confessions and others by ignorant and fearful juries.
The U.S. government comes up with a plot and an accused, and then tortures him until he confesses, or the government fabricates a case and takes it to jurors who know that they cannot face their neighbors if they let off a media-declared "terrorist."
Perhaps the most obvious of these cases is "the Miami seven," a pathetic group of Christian-Zionist-Muslims that called themselves the "Seas of David" and were quietly living in a Florida warehouse awaiting what they regarded as biblical end-times. Along came the FBI posing as al Qaeda and offered them $50,000 and an al Qaeda swearing-in ceremony.
The FBI told them that they needed to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and various government buildings. An honest Knight Ridder news service reporter revealed: "The Justice [sic] Department unveiled the arrests with an orchestrated series of news conferences in two cities, but the severity of the charges compared with the seemingly amateurish nature of the group raised concerns among civil libertarians," who noted that the group had "no weapons, no explosives."
The Justice (sic) Department and tamed media made a big show out of the "militaristic boots" worn by the hapless "plotters," but the FBI had bought the boots for them.
The biggest piece of evidence against the hapless group was that they had taken photos of "targets" in Florida, but the U.S. government had equipped them with cameras. The U.S. government even rented cars for its dupes to drive to take the pictures.
It turns out that the group only wanted the $50,000, but an American jury convicted them anyhow. When the U.S. government has to go to such lengths to create "terrorists" out of hapless people, an undeclared agenda is being served. What could this agenda be?
The answer is many agendas. One agenda is to justify wars of aggression that are war crimes under the Nuremberg standard created by the U.S. government itself. One way to avoid war crime charges is to create acts of terrorism that justify the naked aggressions against "terrorist countries."
Another agenda is to create a police state. A police state can control people who object to their impoverishment for the benefit of the super-rich much more easily than can a democracy endowed with constitutional civil liberties.
Another agenda is to get rich. Terror plots, whether real or orchestrated, have created a market for security. Dual Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, former head of U.S. Homeland Security, is the lobbyist who represents Rapiscan, the company that manufactures the full body "porno-scanners" that, following the "underwear bomber" event, are now filling up U.S. airports.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury and former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. His book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, is a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law. It was released in 2008 by Random House.
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|
There was a time when every American knew about the John Peter Zenger case, because it was "the gem of American freedom." Before Zenger's infamous trial, it was against the law to criticize the government. But after Zenger won his case, you could say anything you want, provided it's true.
In the early 18th century, New York's governor had Zenger arrested for articles Zenger had published about him. Zenger's lawyer, however, successfully convinced the jury to nullify the law that would have convicted Zenger of "seditious libel," securing freedom of the press as well as the fact that a statement cannot be libelous if it's true.
Today, we have Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Is Assange another Zenger, who has been targeted for voicing the truth? Or could he be something else? The Internet is full of disinformation about both Assange and WikiLeaks. There are websites that claim WikiLeaks is affiliated with billionaire insider George Soros and China.
Assange supposedly repudiates anything that refutes the government's theory on 9-11. On the other hand he released documents exposing international bankers.
The first and second sets of leaks looked good, but the last batch has some strange earmarks. It does nothing to expose the warmongers—with the exception of Hillary Clinton allegedly encouraging spying on the United Nations. Instead, the leaks target Arab leaders, while revealing nothing about Israel.
It is impossible to know for sure whether WikiLeaks is "100 percent," so for now we should be ever alert that our enemies create Judas goats, like the "leader of the resistance" in Orwell's chilling novel 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein.
Savanna Hintze is an up-and-coming freelance writer based in freedom-loving Arkansas. We expect to see more from her in future editions of AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
In an event that has caused wide notice and comment, The New
York Times has published a major story on the largely secret
group of bankers who direct the powerful—and, many say,
dangerous—derivatives market.
"Derivatives" refers to complex financial instruments whose value is based on underlying assets or pools of assets. Over the years, proponents such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan have argued that derivatives act as insurance against market volatility. However, critics say they amount to gambling done outside the realm of regulation. Those with knowledge of the market say that despite the often published figure of $600 to $700 trillion of liability, the actual value of the derivatives market is well over $1 quadrillion, or $1,000 trillion.
The Times article, titled "A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trade in Derivatives," states what patriots and leading patriotic publications have been saying for decades: that a hidden group of banking and financial figures controls key markets outside of the public view, while engaging in activities which have strongly negative effects on the nation at large.
The article details the existence of a New York-based control group, which meets monthly to monitor the clearinghouses that are allowed to trade in derivatives. At least one clearinghouse—like many of the leading financial institutions—is based offshore, outside of the United States.
Critics, many of whom are leading patriots, say that derivatives have severely distorted the financial picture, worsening the industrial decline of the nation. They also contend derivatives pose a severe threat, due to the debt liability they represent.
Large parts of the Times article focused on the many efforts by the control group to limit any competitors' entry into the market as well as public knowledge of what has been going on, including the extreme profits and the liability exposure the derivative markets represent for the U.S. economy and the world financial markets.
When the article first became available, just after printing on Dec. 11, it attracted major attention and with its publication on the front page of Times' Sunday edition, the article caused a shockwave of reaction and controversy on the web. Financial and patriot websites quickly filled with comments and analysis of the article's key elements.
Many of the comments and controversy also centered on what some felt the Times had failed to cover in the article: How key Rothschild interests and the British, especially the activities of the London banks, are not mentioned in the article.
Since the development of the derivative markets, many financial and patriotic observers have noted that 60 percent to 80 percent of derivatives are actually traded through the old City of London banks, which place the activity beyond the reach of U.S. law.
For the last four decades a constellation of leading patriots, including Mary Cain, Mary Davidson, Don Bell and especially Richard Kelly Hoskins, have warned Americans about the mounting bad public policies and lax law enforcement in financial markets, with limited effect. Many now feel the derivatives are the latest stage in a long political and financial devolution made possible by the general lack of adherence to the teachings of the patriotic movement. The derivatives now pose by far the most serious danger to the U.S. economy and world markets in history, according to these experts.
Seasoned observers also note that the London banks have attracted billions of investor dollars from the United Sates and elsewhere because of their powerful and secret practices, which greatly limit public and government knowledge of what is occurring.
Moreover, many of those close to the market say the derivative trading was designed to be outside of standard public view, leading to trading in derivatives often described as being done in "black pools" rather than in open, observable trading.
Jeffrey Smith is a correspondent for AFP's East Coast Bureau and lives in New York City.
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 recently spent some time with Tod Fletcher who worked with Prof. David Ray Griffin, internationally recognized as the preeminent scholar on the Sept. 11 attacks. He has written eight 9-11 books, including his latest, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9-11 Conspiracy Theory*
The book by Griffin and Fletcher is a response to a paper coauthored by Cass Sunstein titled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes & Cures." Sunstein is a professor of law at Harvard Law School, on leave while serving as President Obama's information czar.
AFP asked why there was all the hullabaloo over Sunstein's paper. And why write a book about it?
"The paper is very alarming." said Fletcher. "It calls for government to launch a program of infiltration specifically of 9-11truth conspiracy research groups, to break them up in a process that he calls cognitive infiltration. It's a deeply flawed and alarming COINTELPRO-type illegal program, with undefine terms, claims not backed up with any evidence, and bogus scholarly citations and internal contradictions."
What does Sunstein contend?
"Sunstein claims conspiracy theorists blame powerful people for heinous events and because the government blames these powerless poor Arab hijackers whose leader is based in a cave and who themselves don't control the levers of any state or any state agencies, they clearly don't qualify for the full label of a conspiracy theory," said Fletcher.
One main theme of the book is the complicity of the Mainstream media. How is it, AFP asked, that the entire mainstream media can almost unilaterally, and in such a cohesive fashion, ignore all of this evidence?
"It's really a mystery," responded Fletcher. "We know the mainstream media, especially the largest corporations, are increasingly concentrated in terms of ownership, and that there are fewer and fewer independent media outlets out there. I believe that the media is this colluding with the government in this area.
Fletcher continued: "Sunstein claims that the purveyers of conspiracy theories are ‘informationally isolated' that they're able to concoct these crazy theories because they're vout off from the vast amount of information that our wonderfully open society and our free press makes available."
But the truth is the 9-11 truth movement is made up of architects, engineers, intelligence officers, journalists, lawyers, medical professionals, pilots, political and religious leaders, military veterans and family members to name a few. does Sunstein seriously want readers of hiw paper to believe these are conspiracy nuts?
"These ar not ‘informationally isolated people," said Fletcher. "These are highly credentialed highly capable, highly experienced respected and responsible people in many different areas, that are not cut off, who have access to a universe of information."
* The book, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's
Plan to Undermine the 9-11 Conspiracy Theory, is available
on CD for $15 plus $3 S&H. The book and CD are available
as a set for $30 plus $5 S&H - save $5. Call 1888-699-6397
toll free to charge to major credit cards.
|Top|
On Dec. 8, the House passed the so-called Dream Act by a vote of 216 to 198. As AFP reported in the Dec. 20 edition, if this measure becomes law, it would give citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants' children should they join the military or seek higher education. The cost to taxpayers is estimated to exceed $20 billion.
For the most part, the vote in the House was split down party lines, except for a few legislators. The following are the Democrats who had the courage to buck their party and vote against the legislation:
Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa), Michael Arcuri (N.Y.) Brian Baird (Wash.), John Barrow (Ga), John Boccieri (Ohio), Dan Boren (Okla.), Rick Boucher(Va.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Christopher Carney (Pa.), Ben Chandler (Ky.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Kathleen Dahlkemper (Pa.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Brian Higgins (N.Y.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Paul Kanjonki (Pa.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Patrick Murphy (Pa.), Glenn Nye (Va.), William Owens (N.Y.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.V.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Kurk Schrader (Ore.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Zachary Space (Ohio), Bart Stupak (Mich.), Gene Tylor (Miss.), Peter Vosclosky ((Ind.), and Charles Wison (Ohio).
On the other side, there were eight Republicans who voted in favor of the bill. they are: Reps. Anh "Joseph" Cao (La), Michael Castle (Del.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Vernon Ehlers (Mich.), Bob Inglis (S.C.), and Heana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.).
So far, the Senate has blocked the bill, despite the fact that at least four versions are making the rounds there. Senators voted on Dec. 9 to table a motion to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, effectively killing the bill for now. Undaunted, Den. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hopes to bring the House version to the senate floor for a vote right before Christmas.
"Reid will be able to bring the House-passed DREAM Act to the floor at any time because it will come to the Senate as a message from the House with special privilege," reported The Hill, a Washington daily that focuses on congressional news. "A Senate Democratic leadership aid said it would not come to the floor in the second week id December but will certainly receive a vote before senators adjourn for the year.
Will Reid be able to get the votes on this highly controversial immigration bill?
Democrats say they need only five republicans to switch sides to secure the legislation's passage.
But more objective Congress-watchers contend that DREAM is going to be a tough sell for Reid and other liberal Democrats. Conservatives have done a stellar job of showing the bill for what it is: amnesty for a large population of immigrants who broke the law by illegally sneaking into the country.
It is going to be hard to get senators behind a bill like
that at a time when unemployment is at a record high and Washington
is bickering over renewing financial help for some 2 million
Americans who were laid off during the economic downturn.
|Top|
At its zenith, the Roman empire used military bases to assert its power in lands it conquered. Britain later did the same in its colonies. That appears to be th aim of the Pentagon, which has continued to build and expand across the globe at a time when the Obama administration is heralding a withdrawal from Iraq and a planned exit from Afghanistan.
In Iraq alone, the slow withdrawal has not prevented the Pentagon from planning for a future military presence in the country by updating some of the bases there, which will add clout to a large CIA presence housed in the world's largest embassy in Baghdad. There is talk of building a similar embassy in Afghanistan and bases for a reduced U.S. military presence well beyond the projected pull-out in 2015.
It is difficult to find an exact figure for the number of overseas military, naval and airbases, or discover the cost of maintaining them. It is estimated there may be upwards of 1,000 known bases and additional installations listed only on highly classified files. Among the secret installations are CIA black ops centers and private prisons.
The sheer reach fo the U.S. military complex is immense, especially in the Middle East where there at bases in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Israel. Qatar, which has 200,000 citizens and twice as many foreign workers, has become a major U.S. military hub. Its Al Udeid air base is a major cog for handling intelligence gleaned from satellite and specialized spy planes called AWACS.
Plans are believed to be underway to establish new facilities in Morocco and Algeria in order to further extend the U.S. reach in that part of the world.
Nowhere in the Middle East, or the Horn of Africa, is insignificant in the eyes of Pentagon planners. A case in point would be the expanded naval base, Camp Lemonier, in the tiny nation of Djibouti, located between Ethiopia and Somalia.
Aside from strategic significance, the U.S. military presence in many countries has gone hand in hand with weapons sales. For example, Saudi Arabia is reputed to have given U.S. arms makers up to $20 billion over several decades.
Rarely mentioned are secret supply centers for use in the event of conflict in various parts of the globe. For example, the Pentagon has financed the construction of underground weapons bunkers in countries like Jordan and in Bahrain where a major naval project is close to completion.
There are many new bases as well in Eastern Europe, especially in areas formerly part or the Soviet Union - a bone of contention between the United States and Russia today.
In all, there are few nations in which one cannot detect an
American military footprint. One of the startling things about
this empire mentality is the American people are never consulted
and rarely informed about the expansion of our military occupation
and its staggering cost.
|Top|
Since the recent announcement that I will chair the congressional subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve, the media response has been overwhelming. The groundswell of opposition to Fed actions among ordinary citizens is reflected not only in the rhetoric coming out of Capitol Hill, but also in the tremendous interest shown by the financial press. The demand for transparency is growing, whether the political and financial establishment likes it or not. The Fed is losing its vaunted status as an institution that somehow is above politics and public scrutiny. Fed transparency will be the cornerstone on my efforts as subcommittee chairman.
Thanks to public pressure earlier this year, Congress did pass legislation that requires the Fed to disclose some information about its bailout of select industries and companies following the 2008 financial crisis. So about three weeks ago the Fed released data concerning more than $3 trillion of assistance it offered to banks through its bailout facilities. After reviewing this data, however, we are left with many more questions about the Fed's "lending."
In the "Term Securities Lending Facility." the Fed was supposed to have loaned against AAA-rated securities - yet over half of the collateral put up by banks to obtain loans had no listed credit rating. Should we assume that the Fed accepted absolute junk-rated securities as collateral for loans? Presumably these securities were so bad that they wouldn't even publicize their credit rating. So why should our central bank, becked up by your taxes, accept such collateral?
On another not, of the $1.25 trillion purchased under the Fed's "Mortage-Backed Securities Purchase Program," only $877 billion in purchases have been publicized. What happened to the remaining $400 billion?
These kinds of limited disclosures by the Fed only underscore the need for a full and complete audit of the Fed's financial books. This audit should be done by an independent third party, in the same manner that public companies are audited. The Fed should make public its balance sheet, income statement and perhaps most importantly its cash flow statement. It also should publicize the notes explaining those financial statements.
We seem to forget sometimes that Congress created the Fed - it is a government-created [but privately owned and controlled] banking monopoly, and its top decision makers are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If the Fed does not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of these politicians and their constituents, the chairman and governors may not be renominated.
In theory, Congress could even repeal the Federal Reserve Act altogether since it has the authority to do so. Obviously Congress is within its authority to audit an organization it created by statute, and it is time to firmly assume that responsibility.
With 320 members of Congress having cosponsored my legislation
to fully audit the Fed in the 111th Congress, my hope is that
we can build on our broad bipartisan coalition in 2001 and continue
the push for much greater Fed transparency.
|Top|
"Doomsday" is the name given to that day when a large runaway planet supposedly will collide with Earth. Exactly when this catastrophic event will take place is arguable. But some"true believers" use the Mayan calendar, which shows that the "end-day is December 21, 2012.
On the other hand, popular astronomers, often associated with the central government and establishment space projects, prefer to say that "doomsday" will comeand go, and all of us will continue contending with the complex little problems that we face in our public and private lives.
David Abbou is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration "ambassador," conducting public outreach on astronomy and the space program. He asserts, "The Mayan calendar, like all calendars, was made to track time's passage, not to predict future events. The Mayan calendar ‘ending' is not a concern either, if you think about our own calendar ending in December but beginning again in January."
He critiques the contemporary movie 2012 that "featured a massive solar flare causing earthquakes world-wide, all predicted by he Mayan calendar to occur in 2012. The reality is that individual solar flares are unpredictable and have not been linked to increased eartquake activity. What can be predicted is the 11-year solar cycle, and the next cycle of maximum solar activity is scheduled to peak in 2013, not 2012. In addition, the 2013 peak is predicted to be less intense than in previous cycles."
He also said, "While December 2012 is only two years away, there is nothing to fear from the 2012 hype. We humans should be more concerned withpreventing war, disease, famine, pollution and other disasters that truly threaten our planet and our fragile existence upon it."
There was a time in history when no distinction was made between astronomy and astrology -until the renaissance. The Wise Men who visited the infant Jesus in the stable in Bethlem are called astrologers in the Jerusalem Bible. Note that they were guided by a "star" to their destination.
For more about Mayan history and philosophy we can turn to John Major Jenkins, who writes in his book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012: "One thing is certain: the Mayas believed the world will ‘end' in A.D. 2012. But what does this mean?"
Jenkins answers his question: "From an early age I had been fascinated y the world of ideas. I had devoured everything I could on philosophy and cosmology. To me, cosmology involves more than just the study of the cosmos and the nature of the world, but also includes the role of human sprituality."
His study led him to the Mayas. He "intuited that the knowledge of the ancient Mayas was going to play a significant role in the future development of Western philosophy and culture." His extensive travels in "Maya country" paid off.
For two years, 1995 and 1996, I was immersed in research, obsessed with the labyrinthine pandora's box I had opened. The more I learned the better I was able to formulate questions. As soon as I had formed a question correctly, the answer appeared. Soon, a general theory emerged. The Ancient Mayas understood something about the nature of the cosmos and the spiritual evolution of humanity that has gone unrecognized in our own worldview.
"This understanding involves our alignment with the center of our galaxy, our cosmic center and source, and identifies A.D. 2012 end-date because this is the date on ehich occurs a rare alignment with the galactic center. By early 1997 I finished the magnum opus study - the original version of Maya Cosmogenesis 2012."
There are five parts to this dynamic book: 91) a basic orientation to Mesoamerican civilization; (2) a unified Mesoamerican cosmology; (3) the birth of the world and its rebirth; (4) ceremonial site of the birth of galactic cosmology; and (5) the summary and understanding of why the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, and what it means for us today.
To order Maya Cosmogenesiscall the historical magazine The
Barnes Review toll-free at 1-877-773-9077, or send check or money
order to P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Price $20. Add
$5 S&H. Order also at www.barnesreview.com.
|Top|