February 1, 2010
- Tea Party Voters Swing Election
- Vermonters Considering Secession
- Obama May Censor 'Net In Effort to Shut Down ‘Conspiracy Theorists'
- The Fort Knox Conundrum: Chinese Say They Received Bogus Bars Of Gold Traced To U.S.
- One Must Understand A Problem To Solve It by Ron Paul
- Taxed Off?
February 8, 2010
- America Needs Tariffs
- Texas Nationalists Say ‘Sovereignty or Secession'
- Senators Move to Block Audit of Fed
- President's New ‘Minister of Truth' Wants Independent Researchers Silenced Now
- Fifth Most Populous State in the Union Can't Pay Its Bills
- Communist U.S. Income Tax System Must Be Killed and Buried
- Send Condolences - Not Occupation Troops - to Haiti by Ron Paul
- How Private Medicine in America Was Destroyed
February 15, 2010
- Big Oil Behind Haiti Quake?
- Legendary Populist Historian Eustace Mullins Dies
- Third Party's Platform Must Include Repeal of 16th Amendment
- Did U.S. Really Stiff China With Fake Gold
- Ron Paul Wants Fort Knox Audited, Too
- Talk With Elected Officials on New Network
- Legalizing Competing Currencies Is A ‘No Brainer'
- Kudos to Senators Who Voted Against Bernanke Confirmation
February 22, 2010
- Rand Paul Offers Populists Hope For the Future
- People Have Power to Beat ‘Money Trust'
- CIA Checkmated in Afghanistan
- Secret War Being Waged Between Obama, Neo-Cons
- South Carolina Law Demands ‘Subversive' Groups Register
- Mercenaries Are Increasingly Being Used to Wage War
- Mainstream Media No More Than Propaganda Outlets
- Don't Stop Spending, Just Change Who's Doing the Spending
- Mexico Losing War to Drug Lords
IN A RELATED STORY, on Jan. 19 independent Republican Scott Brown won the hotly contested race for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, which had been held by the late Edward Kennedy, a liberal Democrat, for nearly 50 years.
Ironically, Republicans believed the special election held on Jan. 19 following the death of Kennedy was already in the bag for Democrat Martha Coakley. That left the door open for the relatively unknown state Sen. Brown to enter the campaign.
The mainstream media has tried to cast Brown's victory as a referendum against Obama's policies and a feather in the cap for the Republican Party. But even Brown agrees that it's much bigger than that. Brown, as a Republican, went out of his way to cast himself as an independent outsider and successfully tapped into the populist anger directed at both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, who are seen as working for the benefit of the big bankers and corporate fat cats, not working families.
Reporter Kevin McCullough, writing for an online news agency, summed it up best, saying: "The reason Scott Brown won so decisively is not because he captured the one out of every seven voters in Massachusetts who are registered Republicans. He won because he captured the three out of every seven voters in Massachusetts who are independents."
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|
Peter Garritano, one of at least 10 Vermonters running independently for state office this year on a secessionist basis, says the United States has become an empire so cruel and indifferent to the American people and their Constitution, and so brutal in its foreign policy, that there is little value in avoiding the question of secession any longer.
On Jan. 15—Vermont Independence Day—these candidates appeared at a "town hall meeting" in the capital city, Montpelier. They announced their candidacies, which have no party affiliation. Besides local media, a freelancer for Time magazine, showed considerable interest and is writing a book on secession.
While the general turnout at the hall was good, most of the questions came from these reporters. Many wondered how realistic this secession idea—the process of a state leaving the United States and becoming its own country—actually is in the context of modern politics, with some asking what happens if only one or two of the secession candidates get elected.
Garritano, 54, a lieutenant governor candidate from Shelburne, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS that the state's election rules do not require him and secessionist-minded gubernatorial candidate Dennis Steele to run as a team—meaning that either one could be elected separately, or they could both get elected, depending on how economically wounded voters take to their philosophy of refocusing the state-federal relationship with a strong emphasis on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
While there is the occasional heated comment that secession would "recreate the Confederacy and black slavery," Garritano said secession in today's world is a totally different ball game. With so many people of all colors and creeds taking hard hits from extreme economic mismanagement of the nation, the use of the Constitution as a floor mat, and President Obama reneging on nearly every major campaign promise, many from across the political spectrum find themselves intrigued with the secession concept.
As Garritano sees it: "Half the people running on our ticket had voted for Obama and they are now so frustrated and realize it's just more of the same. . . . There has been no change, and he has stepped up the pace on all of Bush's policies," Garritano told AFP. "And that is the reason they are involved in this now."
Obama did not overturn either the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act, to name just two acts that smack of tyranny, after indicating he would.
"All the things that people wanted him to change . . . he has struck out on all those issues," Garritano added. He also said honoring the 10th Amendment consistently would be a major improvement by itself, and perhaps would represent "baby steps" toward secession. Yet, Garritano is not obsessed with secession nor is he indifferent toward practical state issues. And while winning seats in the state government seems like a stretch, he and the others see their effort as more than symbolic.
The local car dealer said that, precisely because education is so important, it should be strictly a state and local matter, adding that if he has anything to say about it, Vermont would refuse federal money for education and everything else. If you don't take the king's nickel, you don't get the noose, he figures.
That would include preserving the home-schooling option while casting aside the federal education act best known as No Child Left Behind (now called Race to the Top, under Obama) and other federal meddling, so Vermont citizens could get on with life without Washington in control.
Furthermore, raw (unpasteurized) milk, available in Vermont and New Hampshire, among other places, could be sold retail on a level playing field with all other dairy products, so the path from farm to refrigerator does not include the risk of fines and arrest by overzealous state health officials, who, as AFP has learned, too often protect big dairy interests and keep the healthy option of raw milk away from a sizable number of consumers. Notably, this dairy protection racket is especially prevalent in California and Pennsylvania. Also, Michigan has been heavy-handed toward raw milk, especially its distribution.
Garritano likes North Dakota's operation of its own state bank to help town banks put the state and its people first, to re-grow jobs lost by NAFTA and other causes, and to try and detach from Wall Street predators.
Garritano, a first-time candidate, admits that getting far with the secession concept right out of the starting gate will be tough. But beyond himself and Steele, the eight secession candidates seeking state Senate seats in Vermont could make quite an impact if public sentiment swings their way and the media treat them as more than a passing curiosity.
Since the state Senate only has 30 seats and has more power than the more populous state House, then a few new senators armed with this idea could at the very least put the state on a much bolder 10th Amendment path (which is happening in Oklahoma even without much talk of secession).
Garritano knows the mere mention of secession is touchy. But more people seem willing to discuss it. He said that trend illustrates just how bad things have become in the United States, such as in Detroit—the once-great Motor City—which is crumbling, and in Flint, Michigan, which is becoming a ghost town in too many neighborhoods.
If there could be a sizable secessionist-minded presence in the Vermont Senate and in the governor's office, there is no telling what could happen.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as a corresponding editor for American Free Press. Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events they cover for AFP. Mark welcomes your comments and inputs as well as story leads. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Big Brother is running scared, and it's the double-edged sword of technology that pursues him. Most certainly science can be used to control, but just as powerfully it can be utilized to expose. That's why the moneyed elite have historically been so horrified of allowing information to be freely released to the masses, and why they so desperately try to conceal it.
The great science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once propounded, "Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy—censorship. When any government or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression."
In January 2008 Barack Obama's information and technology czar, Harvard professor Cass Sunstein, wrote that the following may result under "imaginable conditions": (a) government might ban conspiracy theorizing, and (b) government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
Potentially, Obama's Big Brother representative fully believes that ideas that run contrary to the government's official "holy dogma" may be eliminated or levied with financial penalties. Considering that government is, in reality, our employee, the absurdity of this situation is obvious. Imagine a housekeeper demanding that her employer be only permitted to think certain thoughts. She would immediately be fired. Yet a crypto-Orwellian Zionist such as Sunstein seeks to impose such conditions on potentially everyone who uses the Internet.
Government isn't the only culprit. Earlier this month, Google threatened to shut down operations in China due to China's censorship policies. Yet, in a Jan. 13 letter to Chinese Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, author Michael Hoffman related how Google has engaged in the overt censorship of material related to Holocaust revisionism. Hoffman wrote that these data have been "censored by Google strictly on the basis that they contradicted the official American version of what transpired during World War II."
In a Jan. 16 interview, Hoffman told this writer: "How ironic that Google, with its self-righteous motto of ‘Do no evil,' poses as a champion against Chinese censorship. But at the same time it acts as a censor to protect the American and Israeli version of history." Hoffman also pointed out how Deborah Lipstadt, who coincidentally coined the term "holocaust denier," has had a great deal of influence on Google's top brass.
Similarly, YouTube—which is owned by Google— announced on Dec. 11, 2008, that they had entered into an ominous partnership.
"YouTube has reached out to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for its expertise in dealing with hate on the Internet. The league is now a contributor to YouTube's newly launched Abuse & Safety Center."
What makes this situation so heavy-handed is that two-thirds of all online videos are streamed via YouTube, while Google is undoubtedly the world's largest search engine. In this capacity, Google holds a stranglehold on what computer users see and don't see. Plus, more often than not, the suppressed data relate to such topics as Israel's role in 9-11, the facts and myths of the Holocaust, Israeli war crimes and other "taboo" subjects.
Equally complicit in this arrangement are Jewish-controlled media sources that paint Google as a righteous proponent of free speech. A fitting illustration can be found in a Jan. 14 article for New-York-based Bloomberg, wherein Edwin Chen and Indira Lakshmanan quote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Google's decision to no longer tolerate censorship of its search engine should serve as an example to businesses and governments," Mrs. Pelosi reportedly said.
These reporters also added, "Google briefed the Obama administration before it took action against Chinese leaders."
With Sunstein, the ADL and the Google triad of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Jonathan Rosenberg at the helm, Big Brother assuredly frowns with disapproval at what's considered "hate speech," and cooperates in flushing it down the Memory Hole.
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Could over 1 million bars of gold, much of which is still held in Fort Knox, Ky., be counterfeit? An October 2009 discovery that suggests this may be true has been suppressed by the mainstream media but has been circulating among the "big money" brokers and financial kingpins. It is just now being revealed to the public.
Gold is regularly exchanged between countries to pay debts and to settle the so-called balance of trade. It is often also used as a hedge against a falling currency. Gold is regularly traded and stored in vaults under the strict supervision of a special organization based in London, known as the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA). That's why news of counterfeit gold bars was a surprise to many experts.
In October 2009, China reportedly received a large shipment of gold, containing some 6,000 bars, weighing 400 ounces each. When it was received, the Chinese government asked that tests be performed to guarantee the purity and weight of the gold bars. In this test, four small holes were drilled into the bars, and the metal was analyzed. Officials were shocked to find the bars were bogus. They contained cores of tungsten, with only an outer coating of real gold. What's more, these gold bars, containing serial numbers for tracking, originated in the United States and had reportedly been stored in Fort Knox for years.
According to gold expert Theo Gray, there are very few metals that are as dense as gold. With only two exceptions, they all cost as much or more than gold. The standard gold bar for bank-to-bank trade, known as a "London good delivery bar," weighs 400 troy ounces (more than 33 pounds), yet is no bigger than a paperback novel. To put it in perspective, a bar of steel the same size weighs only 13.5 pounds.
This was the problem that the Ethiopians had in early 2008 when they tried to dump millions of dollars in fake gold into South African banks. What were supposed to be bars of solid gold turned out to be nothing more than gold-plated steel. The South Africans quickly figured this out and sent the shipment back—apparently discovering the hoax with only minimal investigation.
The first exception to the weight of gold is depleted uranium (DU). This material is dirt cheap if you're a government, but is hard for individuals to get. It's also radioactive, which makes the handling of it impractical.
Interestingly enough, before DU was widely used as a U.S. weapons component to make shells more able to penetrate hardened targets, tungsten was used for that purpose.
But tungsten is vastly cheaper than gold—maybe $30 dollars a pound, compared to $1,200 an ounce for gold right now. It has exactly the same density as gold, to three decimal places. Therefore, it has to be drilled to detect the fraud. The only differences are that it's the wrong color, and that it's much harder than gold. Pure gold is soft and can be dented with a fingernail.
At first, many gold experts speculated that the fake gold must have originated in China, which is considered the world's best knock-off producers. However, the Chinese government investigated and issued a statement pointing a finger squarely at the United States.
The Chinese claim that in 1995—during the Clinton administration (Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers)—between 1.3 million and 1.5 million 400-ounce tungsten blanks were manufactured by a sophisticated refiner in the United States, amounting to more than 16,000 metric tons. Some 640,000 of these tungsten blanks were then gold plated and shipped to Fort Knox, according to the Chinese, where they are said to remain to this day. The Chinese contend that the remaining collection of these 400-ounce fakes was eventually gold-plated and then "sold" into international markets.
The global market is literally "stuffed full of 400 ounce salted bars," said one unnamed expert. "It's enough to destroy the world markets."
Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan's experiences with Tupper Saussy when the American dissident was on the run in the 1980s. Both are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS for $25 each.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has kicked off its first round of hearings on the causes of the economic meltdown on Wall Street. The commission is being compared to the Pecora Commission launched in 1932 to investigate the causes of the Great Depression. The Pecora commission is beloved by those to believe the solution to every problem is more laws.
Of course, none of those laws addressed the real causes of the Great Depression. It was the introduction of unsound monetary policy and central economic planning pursued by the Federal Reserve that really threw everything off balance. The Fed was founded in 1913 to stabilize the economy and prevent a recurrence of the short lived panic of 1907, but instead it promptly produced the Great Depression which lasted more than 15 years.
The Pecora Commission was stacked with big government sympathizers who blamed the free market and the gold standard without question, and without any consideration of government interference in the economy. This panel is no different. Never will they contemplate how government steered us into this crisis, and what perverse incentives can be removed or repealed so that the market will function more smoothly. Never will they discuss how investment should come from savings, not debt. Never will it occur to them that fiat money, artificially low interest rates and the whole Federal Reserve System might be unwise and unstable, not to mention unconstitutional. The answer will always be more government regulation and oversight. It is predictable that this government panel will eventually come to the firm conclusion that government needs to be bigger, and that the market is just to free.
How sad is this when exactly the opposite is true?
It is big government that gives out tax breaks to engineer behavior, often creating large pockets of mal-investments. It is government that created the FDIC and the Fed as lender of last resort, all of which encourages moral hazard. It is big government that gives bureaucrats the ability to bail our cronies with taxpayer dollars while screaming that the economic shy is falling if they don't. It is big government that every year adds new layers to the already labyrinthine regulatory code that smaller businesses can't keep up with while simultaneously preventing new businesses from emerging. It is big government that misdirects economic productivity into bankrupt businesses that they consider to be too big to fail.
If this panel were serious about understanding the root of
the problem, as they claim to be, they would have people testify
who understand the crisis and saw it coming. To my knowledge,
none of them have received a phone call. The problem is those
people would say too many things the government panel would find
inconvenient. They would point fingers at too many of the state's
anointed. They would recommend getting government back to simply
protecting contracts and punishing fraud. But the biggest is
perpetrated by the Federal Reserve. No one on this panel takes
that viewpoint seriously. Instead, they will be asking people
who are still scratching their heads at how they could have missed
the housing bubble what new regulations they can put in place
to prevent future bubbles. Thus, I don't expect much real wisdom
to come out of this current investigation.
|Top|
America is bankrupt. It's so bad that the White House with the support of Congress, is attempting to "stimulate" the economy with new, borrowed debt. How dumb can they be? Naturally there will be dome economic activity - it's just artificial.
Any real economist knows you cannot grow wealth by accumulating debt, upon debt, upon debt. It is mathematically incongruent woth any formula for economic expansion. Economic growth that is genuine and real will emanate from a solid expansion of private sector investment and profit.
I am a capitalist. Profit is not a dirty word. Truth is, in America today, the seedbeds of economic expansion and growth do not exist. The potential for genuine growth has slowly been depleted and destroyed by a Communist, progressive income tax.
Yes, I said "Communist" Taxation to support a massive central government sounds familiar. Think on it, and you'll slowly begin to focus on my use of the word Communist. Karl Marx is the father of the progressive income tax. Mar: the no. 1 Communist in history. Marx's goal was to tax the rich and use that money to distribute to the masses. The beginnings of the poor vs. the rich, the have-nots against the haves. It was the inception of the concept of the redistribution of wealth.
Today, some call it socialism. But what makes it Communism is that the distributors of all this money happen to be the big central government that controls and operates all national activity.
Let us take a snapshot of America. The big central government owns and operates our biggest auto manufacturer, controls and administers retirement programs and, in a short time perios, will control health and medical programs. Whatever happened to the United States of america? Tthe states are now background music in a government-run doctor's office.
Some states sent their hard-earned tax dollars to Washington only to see it "distributed" to other states Washington deems needy. That certainly sounds charitable. But the problem is the need for money in those so-called needy states is due to the failed policies of the big central government. These include: open borders, illegal immigrants consuming health and entitlement dollars, unnecessary foreign wars and a tax scheme that penalizes achievement, kills saving and investment, rewards dependence, subsidizes illegitimacy, obliterates exports and destroys families.
Am I being unfair? Not at all. Consider all the levies on America: income taxes death taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on savings, service fees, tolls, environmental taxes, fuel taxes. The list goes on and on. And I'm not even addressing state and local taxes. It's so bad today that the big, fat central government even has surtaxes - taxes on taxes.
America doesn't meed more taxes. Nor does America need mor "stimulus" that is to be derived from expanded debt, which is eclipsing more than $12 trillion. Unbelievable. Every American now owes close to $40,000 to pay off our national debt. And, those unmentionables in Washington, D.C., want another stimulus package?
America needs one major critical action, an action long overdue. And, unless this direction is implemented immediately, our society will ultimately weaken and degenerate into civil uprisings.
This action is simple and logical: Repeal the Communist 16th Amendment. Implement a flat, fair 25 percent consumption tax on all final retail sales.
Naysayers will give you reason after reason why this tax policy will fail. They lie. It's as simple as that.
My father once told me, "Jimmy, I never worked for a poor man." My father was right. We should not tax the rich unfairly for the sake of redistributing their financial success. We should reward those who earn money. These are the individuals who form America's foundation for jobs and private sector "stimulus." It's called capitalism.
NEW TAX PLAN
Nest week, I'll detail my plan, brought forth along with two
fine former members of Congress by the names of Rilly Tauzin
and Dan Schaeffer, both of whom happen to be Republicans. We
have one important fact in common - we are all Americans. It
will be hard to detail the entire tax plan in this commentary.
I shall give the basics for your general understanding. However,
I will give a thorough presentation of my tax plan at the National
Town Hall meeting Saturday, Feb. 13 in Washington, D.C., hosted
by AFP. Don't miss this historic First Town Hall promoted by
an American newspaper (AFP) that is not afraid to be the leader
in forming a third political party in these, still, United States.
|Top|
"Before the income tax was invented, the duty levied on imported goods financed almost the entire cost of America's federal government—and as much as 80 percent of that duty came through the Port of New York, making the New York Custom House a major national financial power."
That is how the sign reads outside the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House in lower Manhattan, which stands as a stately symbol of what used to be the main tax for federal revenue: the tariff. For the first 125 years of these United States, there was no federal income tax but tariffs were levied on imports as a commonsense source of revenue.
Ian Fletcher, an author and economist on the other side of the nation at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Business and Industry Council, talked with AFP about the hard realities of modern trade. He used to live where he had a good view of the Golden Gate Bridge.
"You could see the container ships coming in—riding very low in the water—because the containers were full; the containers obviously have to go back where they came from, so the same number of boats go back," he said. "You see them going out of the Golden Gate Bridge riding very high in the water; the reason for that, obviously, is the United States is not exporting nearly as much as it's importing. So these ships are going back to China and places like that half empty, sometimes entirely empty."
Fletcher, a former Wall Street economist who served hedge funds, private equity firms "and pirates like that," as he put it, said that he wrote his new book, Free Trade Doesn't Work: Why America Needs a Tariff, because "I wanted to give something back to this country."
Interestingly, he said, "At long last, academic economists in the universities were finally putting together the math that would enable you to prove on a very high intellectual level that free trade is the mistake that most commonsense people think it is."
He added, "So I thought it was time that this be put before the public, because it's something they really need to know. . . . Everyone who has looked at the book has liked it." However, many diehard free-trade intellectuals are the exception.
"Those guys just don't understand that ideology and economics are not the same thing," Fletcher said of today's free traders, including Ludwig von Mises disciples and others cut from a similar cloth. "You can believe in any political ideology you want . . . but economics is supposed to be a discipline of facts."
When asked how much longer "average Americans" must suffer under NAFTA—a demonstrated failure first instituted in 1994—Fletcher gave a startling response:
"Well, I think the good news there is that the free-trade era of the United States is coming to an end"—based in part on the academic world's newfound realizations about free trade's fallacies, which may spell the beginning of the end for America's modern trade regime.
He added: "Free trade, although it's a mistake, is something that can look like a good policy for nations under certain circumstances. The British thought it was really good policy around the middle of the 19th century. They adopted it, and it knocked them off their economic perch. And I think the United States is being forced to wake up. And it will be dragged, kicking and screaming, back to America's traditional economic policy, which is protectionist, though a lot people don't know that."
Britain began to flirt with free trade around 1860 and eventually saw it fail. Ironically, exactly 100 years later, in 1960, America embarked down the same road, Fletcher noted.
Fletcher agrees with Gus Stelzer, the late General Motors executive and trade writer, that the U.S. Constitution is a protectionist document—that it does not provide for neo-liberal trade policies. Fletcher said: "The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations. . . ."
Thus, the constitutional framework is "black and white," Fletcher told AFP, regarding the unmistakably clear protectionist provisions installed for the purpose of "ordered liberty" so Congress can set the ground rules for imposing tariffs not simply to raise revenue, but mainly to protect domestic industry. That, he said, is the ultimate goal of tariffs. The revenue is secondary.
Another black-and-white item—Chinese tires—was addressed by Fletcher. The Obama administration's support of tariffs on Chinese tires and pipes is, in Fletcher's assessment, more of a disappointment than many people may realize.
"The Chinese tire situation is pretty indicative of what he is really doing. He is making small, little adjustments here and there, like his predecessors have, to prevent anything little from blowing up into a big flashpoint. He is clearly not a protectionist. The U.S. International Trade Commission recommended a 55 percent tariff on Chinese tires; he only imposed 36 percent."
Fletcher sees this as a signal to keep the protectionists pacified but also for Obama to indicate, "Fundamentally, I am a free trader." He said Obama went on to propose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is "a whole new free trade area for the Pacific. So there is no doubt that Obama is a free trader."
Fletcher said The Wall Street Journal "will scream its head off every time somebody imposes a 2 percent tariff on toothpicks," yet that is mainly theatrics for the masses, since long-existing rules provide for tariffs to be imposed now and then on narrow segments of incoming goods—if pushed hard enough by domestic interests. But many observers read too much into these occasional tariffs, he said.
So, as AFP asked Fletcher, are these "token tariffs" on Chinese tires and pipes a sign of even a small shift away from a free-trade regime?
"Not even remotely," Fletcher answered, adding that yet another turnaround on campaign promises for Obama is that, as a candidate, he said he would renegotiate NAFTA. "He has since announced that he will not renegotiate NAFTA at all."
* Fletcher appeared on WhenWorlds Collide, Anderson's weekly radio show, Jan. 23. See the archive at RepublicBroadcasting.org.To get a copy of his book, go to FreeTradeDoesntWork.com.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the deputy editor for American Free Press. Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events they cover for AFP. Mark welcomes your comments and inputs as well as story leads. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The Texas Nationalist Movement, whose motto is "Independence, in Our Lifetime," was going to hold its first-ever Texas Independence Conference in mid-March at the Municipal Auditorium in downtown San Antonio. But that event is being slated for later in the year due to scheduling conflicts.
Meanwhile, however, the movement's leaders have been conducting "road shows" in Beaumont, Austin, San Antonio and elsewhere to inform interested people in these communities about making Texas independent again.
In the wake of AFP's coverage in its Feb. 1 edition of 10 Vermont candidates seeking elected office on a secessionist basis, this Texas secession exploration movement is yet another sign that Americans are growing tired of trying to get the U.S. government to acknowledge their existence—let alone stop representing super-rich interests over those of the common citizen.
The Constitution says only Congress shall declare war, but Congress doesn't. It says Congress shall issue money, but the Federal Reserve does that privately—with interest. It says Congress shall regulate trade, but Congress transferred most of that control to the World Trade Organization. The Bill of Rights barely stands; and on and on—billions for bailouts; a ruthless attack against a Waco, Texas religious sect in 1993; endless trillion-dollar wars overseas; porous national borders; forcing the populace into a free-trade system that is destroying the industrial base etc etc.
The list of abuses could make King George III blush, but a growing number of Americans in what remains of the economy are not amused.
"The aim of the movement is to establish an independent Texas, with an emphasis on Texas production and cultural strengthening," explains a news release posted at TexasNationalist.com. This particular group calls itself "nationalist" rather than "secessionist," but it and another group have common uniting themes. The other group is called "Texas Secede!"
What is now Texas was once the property of Spain but fell under Mexican control after Santa Anna and other Mexican military leaders helped free it from Spain's colonial control.
But Americans of Anglo-Saxon ancestry began to migrate south into a vast state that today has 254 counties. Under the direction of such notables as Stephen Austin, the migrants received land grants in Texas and began to get a foothold. Texas eventually declared independence from Mexico on March 2, 1836, en route to becoming the Republic of Texas. The battle of the Alamo soon followed that same month in 1836.
When hostilities formally ended, Texas achieved independence for nine years before being admitted to the union on Dec. 29, 1845, as the 28th state.
As for the present day, details for rescheduling the postponed conference will be posted as soon as possible on the TNM website, TexasNationalist.com, and the conference's full agenda will be published as it becomes available.
A spokeswoman for the movement told AFP on Jan. 26 that it's only known that the conference will not be in March. So, it will have to be in April or later. The underlying premise in Texas, Alaska, Tennessee, Vermont and other states flirting with secession is stated in the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
This is nothing new. It's just that the schools and media no longer stress it. Even Independence Day has been re-coined as the generic "Fourth of July." The meaning behind it, which naturally applies to all Americans, has been obscured.
At a Kalamazoo, Mich., speech some years ago, this AFP writer heard former Alabama Judge Roy Moore— "the 10 Commandments judge" who was not allowed to place a 10 Commandments monument that he paid for on government property—refer to the Declaration of Independence as "organic" law that provides the roots of America's constitutional order.
If that is indeed the case, then the Declaration's words a few lines later could be considered all the more compelling: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Those are strong words. As actor Nicholas Cage said in the popular movie National Treasure, in which the Declaration itself was stolen, "No one talks like that anymore." Well, many people across the country are starting to talk like that again.
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
POWERFUL SENATORS ARE WORKING to undermine landmark legislation passed by the House on Dec. 11, 2009 that would give the federal government the power to audit the Federal Reserve, says Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), head of the House Financial Services Committee.
According to Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who heads the Senate Banking Committee, has personally assured Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that any audit-the-Fed language would never make it through his committee to be included in any Wall Street reform package in the Senate.
Dodd, who recently announced he will not be seeking reelection during the midterm elections next November, is currently vetting a broad Wall Street reform package in the Senate. It is unknown whether that bill contains the provision, which mandates an official audit of the privately owned and controlled U.S. central bank by the Government Accountability Office. Gregg, who is also a member of the banking committee, has been one of the most vocal opponents of any bill in the Senate that would open the Fed up to public scrutiny.
In 2009, following House passage of the audit the Fed amendment sponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Gregg released a blunt statement, declaring: "Passage of the Paul Amendment by the House Financial Services Committee is a dangerous move by this Congress to pander to the populist anger currently directed against our central bank, the Federal Reserve."
Both Dodd and Gregg have benefitted from sizeable donations from Wall Street firms. According to FEC records, in the past five years, Gregg has received over $20,000 in donations from big banks like Citigroup and Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs. The health insurance industry is the only other industry that has donated more to Gregg. Dodd has also benefitted from sizeable donations from the money trust. In the past five years, Dodd has received $3.8 million from Wall Street. On Main Street, there is a growing backlash against the Fed's policies, which are seen as benefitting big banks and Wall Street to the detriment of working-class Americans.
The recent election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate
in Massachusetts has prompted Democrats in the Senate to take
a stronger populist position in opposing international corporations
and Wall Street. This means legislation to audit the Fed could
still be added to any reform bills making the rounds in the Senate
and has as good a chance as any of ending up on Obama's desk.
|Top|
In one more Orwellian giant leap toward a real-life establishment of the "Ministry of Truth," Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is advocating the infiltration of groups that discuss "conspiracy theories" like the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in order to brainwash them into accepting government propaganda.
As Obama's new pick to head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein would be in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality and statistical programs," according to the White House's web site. But, if his position papers are to be believed, he advocates much more than just being the caretaker of the federal government's paperwork.
In 2008, Sunstein co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily target groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups. In other words, whatever Big Brother says must remain an unchallengeable fact.
Sunstein's article, published in The Journal of Political Philosophy, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a ‘crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of relevant informational sources."
By "crippled epistemology: Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have only a limited number of sources of information that hey trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public, because conspiracy theorists believe these networks have already been corrupted. So, Sunstein believes the government should take its message to the conspiracy theorists directly, but in such a way that they would not know it is coming from the government.
In George Orwell's classic novel 1984, his mythical nation of Oceania created a ministry of lies that masqueraded under the misnomer of "Ministry of Truth," whose language was inverted lies that "passed into history and became truth" and whose purpose was to rewrite history and change facts to fit party doctrine. The people continued to be duped by everything said and done by Oceania because even its very existence was distorted by its slogans: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength."
Sunstein admits that there are "many millions of people holding conspiracy theories and that they believe powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event." Never mind that these alleged theories were long ago proved to be factual and that they are backed up by experts whose truths can only be distorted by altering the laws of physics.
Sunstein cares nothing for the truth, saying, "Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and such theories raise significant challenges for policy and law."
With Obama announcing that "War is Peace" in his
praise for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan during his acceptance
speech of the Nobel peace prize, nothing should surprise us.
In the Obama administration - as with Oceania - truth and lies
have become indivisible. The office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has now become America's new Ministry of Truth, and Sunstein
has become its new director.
|Top|
Could Illinois by the first among may states in the union to declare bankruptcy? According to a recent analysis by a Chicago watchdog group, the prairie state is already there. It is drowning in debt and does not have the money to pay its bills.
By definition, Illinois, the fifth most populous state, is already bankrupt. This year's budget shortfall alone amounts to $5.7 billion in addition to the more than $5 billion the state government already owes creditors. As of now, it has no hope of paying its budget deficit, let alone paying down its past debts. With revenue shrinking thanks to plummeting property values and the collapsing economy, the government is in serious trouble - a breath away from having to publicly acknowledge that it is broke.
The Institute for Illinois Fiscal Sustainability, the watchdog group that looked in-depth at the state's financial troubles, remarked that the state's total debt is "nearly half of the state's general fund's operating budget - and better than 20 percent of Illinois' total budget, which includes operations, capital, federal programs and other matters. Put a different way, the two-year hole in the state budget amounts to about $1,000 for each Illinoisan - man, woman and child.
But it's worse than that. The state is also being crushed by its unfunded liabilities and guarantees, which are expected to grow to nearly $100 billion by the end of June 2010. It's so bad that retired legislators have not been paid the pensions they are owed, and the state has had to float bonds at a premium price to fund the pensions of other lower-level retirees.
Like many other troubled states, state legislators have done little to address the growing problem. They have refused to take the radical steps necessary to cut budgets, layoff bureaucrats and raise taxes. And it's not expected to get any better. In fact, most expect 2011 to be even worse for Illinois as far as budget deficits go.
Like so many others in this country, the key issue is debt. For years, gambling on Wall Street allowed governments to make promises to workers in the form of pensions and future healthcare guarantees. But when the economy collapsed in 2008, pension funds lost trillions of dollars in value, forcing governments to take drastic measures to keep the programs from going belly up.
Now, the end looms large, evidenced by the fact that municipal bonds issued by states are no longer considered safe investments. In 2008, following the collapse of the U.S. economy, so-called muni funds lost on average nearly 10 percent of their value - a significant loss for holdings once believed to be one of the safest bets.
This comes after a recent report that leading financial research firm Moody's cut the credit ratings of a number of financially strapped states, including California and Illinois. They're not quite junk status, but this will ultimately force these states to float bonds at a higher return in order to lure investors. What his means is that any new debt the states take on will ultimately cost taxpayers a lot more.
For years, municipal bonds have been used to fund capital projects like school buildings, roads and bridges. Often these are set to mature many years down the road. Illinois was recently forced to float nearly $3.5 billion in bonds at a rate of maturity of 4.5 percent in just one to five years so it could keep its public employee pension program from going under.
For Illinois, the situation is about as dire as it can get.
"I would describe bankruptcy and the inability to pay
one's bills," Jim Nowlan, a fellow at the University of
Illinois' Institute of government and Public Affairs, told a
Chicago newspaper. "We're close to de facto bankruptcy,
if not de jure bankruptcy."
|Top|
The Communist, "progressive" income tax must be killed and buried. Few Americans realize that the reason for the 16th Amendment was simply because the Supreme court struck down as unconstitutional the first income tax passed by Congress. Imagine that.
The Founding Fathers of America knew that a "head tax on income" was not only unwise, but also counterproductive to a free, capitalist republic. How correct they were. American revenue was derived from trade and commerce with other nations. Tariffs and levies were the foundation of national revenue.
The constitution was clear. Section 8{3} gives Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes."
The intent was evident. The law was set in constitutional concrete. The nation was to do business in macroeconomic terms, not microeconomic policy that places a punishing, negative impact on individual labor. The Founders knew that if you taxed a man's labor, he would lose motivation to work. They knew it wouldn't happen overnight, but eventually it would occur. And it has.
Think about it: The harder you work, the more tax you pay. The more you earn, the more you pay. This is exactly what the founders opposed.
The founders rewarded labor. They incentivized the workplace. They promoted and encouraged personal industry, self-actualization and, yes, individual independence. However, the Communist, progressive income tax has destroyed their vision. We have replaced individuality with government-sponsored dependence, creating government agencies that promote and fortify programs that slowly drain the blood of independence from millions of unknowing Americans who have learned to use the system to survive and for some, even healthy, to avoid work.
Karl Marx's Communist plan has manifested itself into the very fabric of American life.
Marx is teamed throughout history with Lenin. You've often heard the term Marxist-Lenin communism, haven't you? Well, listen to the words of Lenin: "Destroy the family, and the society will collapse."
Lenin also said: "Give me your four-year-old Kids, and within a generation I will build a socialist state.
Lenin's policies, coupled with Marx's Communist, progressive income tax, have turned America into a strict, unmistakable socialist nation. It hurts to admit it, doesn't it? But, it's true. Marx and Lenin have infiltrated our very lives.
It is time, folks, to throw Marx and Lenin out for good.
We can do that by repealing the communist 16th Amendment to our Constitution. We then abolish the worthless, un-American Internal Revenue Service. We can then replace this economic abomination with a flat, fair simple 25 percent retail sales tax that finances our government and funds Social Security and Medicare.
My plan is not to reform the tax scheme of America, but to abolish it, and replace it.
I propose a flat, fair, final retail sales tax of 25 percent. Naysayers say it will never happen. Don't believe them: It is inevitable.
A Harvard professor's study said that when we remove this massive, punitive income tax, American industry will experience vast savings thanks to lower compliance and production costs. They will, in turn, drop prices to seek new market share. It's known as capitalism, Thus, the Harvard professor's study predicted little or no price increase with the enactment of the final retail sales tax of 25 percent.
I will discuss my entire plan at the first National Town Hall meeting on Saturday Feb. 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., sponsored by American Free Press.
If you want to salvage America, you should attend this national town hall meeting. I use the word "salvage," because I want everyone to know that America is bankrupt, but it's not yet lost.
Forget the naysayers. After all, they are sending america to hell in a hand basket, and they don't even knowit.
For those who oppose this capitalist tax program, remember this: You support dependency, illegitimacy and socialism. You support taxes on savings, labor, capital gains, income, education and investments. You are advocates of a Marxist-Leninist government. Even if you don't realize it, you are also helping to prop up Communism.
So I say: no more withholding pay on wages, no more taxes on savings, no more taxes on income, no more taxes on capital gains, no more death tax, no more taxes on education expenses, no more personal taxes, no gift taxes, no alternative-minimum tax, no Social Security tax, no Medicare tax, no self-employment tax, no corporate tax and no tax on investments.
But it doesn't stop there.
No more civil tax cases. No more audits. No more IRS. No more IRS witch-hunts. No more April 15 tax deadlines. No more accountants. No more tax attorneys. And no more Big brother.
I also support a 25-percent tariff at our border covering all imports. Imports would be treated the same as all American products sold in the United States. American exports would remain untaxed, providing for an increase for overseas sales, thus reducing our massive trade deficit.
Every foreign visitor to Vegas or Broadway or anywhere in the United States would become a 25-percent tax-paying visitor.
Finally, families and individuals under the poverty level will be required to save pay stubs and vouchers to verify their need for short-term public assistance. Jobs would be assigned to those who receive assistance.
Think about it.
Next week I will share more.
In the meantime, if you want to be a part of salvaging America,
you will attend AFP's First National town Hall Meeting in Washington,
D.C. on Feb. 13. Call American Free Press today at 202-544-5977
and talk to Pete right away. Seats are still available. Be there.
|Top|
I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution [H.R. 1021]. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I work to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.
Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the U.S. government "to begin the reconstruction of Haiti" and affirms that "the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States." I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a "long-term" occupation of Haiti during which time the U.S. government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.
I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long-term U.S. plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and bush administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the U.S. military. I do not agree.
Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the
American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time.
I believe that the American people are very generous on their
own and fear that a U.S. government commitment to reconstruct
Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Already
we see private U.S. citizens and corporations raising millions
of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe
the U.S. government should get in the way of these laudable efforts.
I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my
colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United
States government to rebuild Haiti.
|Top|
This article is copyrighted and can not be posted here, but it can be read at:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100121_wall_st.htm
Did American petroleum companies murder hundreds of thousands of Haitians while extracting oil from their shores? In an exclusive Jan. 28 interview, social commentator and human rights attorney Ezili Danto believes "hydraulic fracturing" caused by drillers searching for oil may have caused the Jan. 12 earthquake.
Yes, oil is Haiti's smoking gun. Why do you think 20,000 American troops now occupy and control this impoverished nation? On Jan. 28, 2009, geologist Daniel Mathurin revealed, "Haiti's oil reserves are larger than those of Venezuela. An Olympic pool compared to a glass of water is the comparison."
Indeed, Haiti may have 20 times more oil than Venezuela. Daniel and Ginette Mathurin mapped 20 oil sites (five of them major), and, oddly enough, the quake's epicenter occurred in the exact same area where the Port-au-Prince resources exist. Imagine, one of the largest caches of oil in the Western Hemisphere, and now over a million residents are displaced or deceased.
In a Jan. 26 commentary, Pastor Chuck Baldwin asked, "Why was an earthquake of this magnitude not felt beyond Port-au-Prince?" He continues, "People living in the adjoining country of Dominican Republic universally say they felt nothing." He concludes, "It is being called ‘miraculous' that an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale did not produce a colossal tsunami."
Ms. Danto also found the localized destruction very suspicious.
"Port-au-Prince hasn't had an earthquake since 1771," she said. "What we're seeing is similar to Hurricane Katrina. Look at how many people never returned to where they originally lived. Perhaps the oil cartels needed to get rid of certain people near the coastline where they wanted it cleared. If Haiti were a piece of dirt with just black people and no oil or minerals, they would have left us alone. We wouldn't see all the investment money and troops; nor would the U.S. have built the fifth largest embassy in the world in this tiny little country."
To whom specifically is she referring? U.S. companies have known since 1908 that Haiti teemed with oil reserves. In the 1950s and 1960s, two different contractors were bought off to not develop these sites. CIA files also show that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) verified contracts in 1962 regarding these possible oil reserve sites.
Ms. Danto explores the economic ramifications of this situation: "Oil companies in the 1960s and 1970s didn't want to add more supply to the market and allow prices to plummet," she said. "So, they locked down these deposits and kept them in reserve until the 21st century when Middle Eastern reserves began waning. For the past 50 years, Haiti has been called the Western Hemisphere's poorest country. Oil profits could have vastly changed the lives of these people. Now we're being fleeced, and our resources are being stolen. Haiti has always been a dumping ground, including the theft of our forests and minerals."
In mining Haiti's riches, Ms. Danto recounts, "There were areas in Haiti hidden behind UN guns, fenced off where Haitians knew nothing about what these soldiers were doing," she said. "There were barricades around Port-au-Prince, and we couldn't see what the UN soldiers were doing. This activity started after the Bush-led coup d'?tat in 2004. The areas blocked off were the same places where experts said oil reserves existed."
To illustrate the abundance of this natural resource, Dr. Georges Michel wrote on March 27, 2004, "In 1975 we bathed in the waters of Les Cayes and noticed that our feet were covered by a sort of black oil seeping from the seabed."
An even more interesting point is Ms. Danto's revelation that a series of minor "earthquakes" registering near 2.0 on the Richter scale have been occurring for the past couple of years. A geologist also informed her that the 7.0 earthquake took place six miles below where oil companies were drilling.
Also curious is a Jan. 15 statement by Bob Brewin, a military-technology writer and editor at the popular web site Next Gov.com. Brewin said that one day prior to the earthquake, Jean Demay of the Defense Information Systems Agency visited the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, where U.S. forces were conducting exercises on how to deal with a major earthquake in Haiti.
Indeed, one day later this catastrophe transpired. As the U.S. military now controls Port-au-Prince, are U.S. government efforts to rebuild their infrastructure simply a ruse to grab Haiti's oil?
Ms. Danto answers this question very adroitly. "Most of Haiti's major deep water ports have been privatized since the Bush 2004 regime change in Haiti." She then noted in 2009, "If there are substantial oil and gas reserves in Haiti, the U.S.-Euro genocide and crimes against the Haitian population has not begun."
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Eustace Mullins, the legendary author of hundreds of books and pamphlets demolishing the lies of the war-making mainstream media, died Tuesday, Feb. 2, in a small Texas town at the home of his caretaker, Jesse Lee. Considered by many to be the greatest political historian of the 20th century, Mullins's meticulous research uncovered far more political secrets of government shenanigans than anyone else dared to touch.
Mullins, who would have been 87 in March, suffered a stroke in early January in Columbus, Ohio. He had been on an extended tour of his admirers for much of the past year, visiting and chatting with many of his thousands of fans who jumped at the chance to buy his books from him in person. It was during that sojourn that he stopped at the AFP offices for an afternoon's visit in mid July 2009, which was detailed in the July 29, 2009, edition of AFP.
Eustace was born in Roanoke, Va., in 1923 but spent most of his life in nearby Staunton, Va., the home of President Woodrow Wilson, for whom he took an early investigative dislike. Wilson, of course, was president at the time the Federal Reserve Act was sneaked through in 1913, and Mullins's classic Secrets of the Federal Reserve exposed the duplicity between the bankers and the politicians. Here Mullins notes that World War I, the Agricultural Depression of 1920 and the Great Depression of 1929 were brought about by international banking interests in order to profit from conflict and economic instability.
"Wilson later claimed he was deceived," Eustace once said, "but I never believed it. The facts showed he couldn't have been that blind."
Mullins's rise to notoriety began with his discovery of the political railroading and imprisonment without conviction in 1946 of America's most famous poet of the age, Ezra Pound. Pound had become an outspoken anti-war critic, made several broadcasts from Italy, which FDR deemed "treasonous," and spent 12 years as "the sanest person" incarcerated at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the mentally ill in Washington, D.C. He had been held without trial.
Following his release in 1958, Pound said that the pamphlets and books written by Mullins during those years on Pound's plight were the most influential in gaining his freedom. This meant a great deal coming from Pound who, after first educating his young prot?g? on the subject, actually commissioned Mullins to write the first critical work on the Federal Reserve.
This project cost Mullins his job at the Library of Congress in 1952, when his first book appeared in print. In 1950, Mullins struck another establishment nerve when Sen. Joe McCarthy asked him to look into who was financing the Communist Party, the results of which eventually shipwrecked the senator's career and coined the term "McCarthyism," now in the dictionary. Mullins spent the rest of his life being followed, harassed and wiretapped by the FBI. He retaliated by writing a book about these experiences.
Never has such a soft-spoken man screamed so loudly with his pen as Mullins, and of course that oft-defaming group known as the ADL smeared him with that easy-to-fling but hard-to-define term "anti-Semite."
His book Murder by Injection exposed the medical fraud of vaccinations 20 years before the current flap. While a lifelong enemy of the establishment, Mullins constantly searched for more truth than could be found in the halls of education. This thirst for knowledge made him an icon among the living; and his classic collection of books will cement his immortality through the ages.
We will all miss him.
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|
President Obama recently gave his first State of the Union address. A polarized group of politicians attended. Democrats and Republicans. Same room but miles apart. The federal government is fractured by partisanship. It seems the goal of both parties is to gain the majority. The people, citizens and taxpayers are an afterthought.
Mr. Obama said, "We have a deficit of trust." How true. The American people have lost trust in the government. Truth is trust, and the American people have lost trust because the federal government has lied. Lies, lies and more lies.
The biggest lies of both parties are evident around election time: cut taxes and reduce the deficit by curtailing spending. What a joke. Both parties have had their chances. Truth is, they've both failed.
The problem is allegiance. Yes, allegiance. The healthcare debacle epitomized the cancer in federal politics. There are some 535 members of Congress—and not one Democrat agreed with the Republicans. Not one Republican agreed with a Democrat.
There were a few Democrats that were "permitted" to vote no on the health bill. They were "allowed" to dissent because the Democrats had enough other votes to pass it.
Democratic leaders gave vulnerable Democratic members a chance to salvage their election in contested districts, in order to keep and maintain their majority.
In essence, members of both parties showed solidarity and allegiance to their respective parties. This cardinal sin has destroyed America. The only allegiance of importance is to the American people, not the parties.
In fact, there's really no difference between these two parties: They both promise to reduce the deficit, balance the budget, reform welfare, cut spending, fix Social Security, achieve tort reform, stabilize Medicare, cut government spending, create jobs, stop illegal immigration, bolster education, increase exports, cut trade deficits, reduce dependence on foreign oil and give us everything we want.
Think about it. They even promise to pay down the national debt. But the promise that frosts my pumpkin is—they both promise to cut taxes. Promises, promises. Lies and more lies. Have you not had enough? Our government does not need change; our government needs to be replaced.
It is not very complicated. America needs a third party with a program, not promises. That program must begin with the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which would kill the Communist income tax forever and abolish the IRS. It is that simple.
If you've read my columns you now have some understanding of the replacement I recommend. It doesn't make sense to penalize work and reward dependence. It is stupid to suffocate working families while subsidizing illegitimacy. No wonder taxpayers are "taxed off." America needs another Tea Party. That should be the name of the new, independent, third party. After all, it worked just fine once before in our forefather's time.
A flat, fair 25 percent consumption tax on all new goods and services will impact every area of our economy. The fair tax will eliminate: withholding of wages, taxes on savings, tax on capital gains, death taxes, personal taxes, taxes on education, gift taxes, the alternative minimum tax, the Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, the self-employment tax, corporate taxes, civil tax cases, audits, IRS witch-hunts, April 15 and other tax deadlines, paperwork, tax attorneys, accountants, surtaxes, late fees, extensions, office visits, tax regulations, tax rules, tax penalties, IRS agents, IRS investigators, tax settlements, tax judgments, big brother and all of those empty promises of tax cuts.
Enough is enough.
James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a well-known football star. He also received a M.S. degree from Youngstown State University in 1976. For ten years he served as executive director of the Mahoning County (Ohio) Drug Program and from 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, he was expelled from the House of Representatives. Despite his conviction and expulsion and being sent to prison for a seven year term Traficant still won 15% of the vote running for re-election to the House in the 2002 election as an independent. He recently completed a seven-year prison sentence, having refused to seek a pardon or clemency, refusing to admit to or apologize for crimes he did not commit.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Is it in the basement of chase Manhattan Bank? Did it really get shipped to Israel? Where is the gold? The rumors circulating for decades about there being "no gold in fort Knox" may now have some merit.
The gold scandal first surfaced two years ago when millions of dollars in "gold" at the central bank of Ethiopia turned out to be bogus. What were supposed to be bars of solid gold were nothing more than gold-plated steel. The bars the Ethiopians allegedly received were so obviously phony - gold-coated steel weighing a few pounds less than half of what each bar should weigh - that a few experts speculated the Ethiopian bankers knew that they had been ripped off and were simply trying to pawn it off on South Africa. It didn't work, and the South African banks returned it.
Meanwhile, as reported by BBC News, another batch of "gold" in the bank's vaults had also been found to be fake, but again it was gold-plated steel. This time it was phony gold bars that had been there for several years, after being allegedly seized from smugglers who were trying to take it to the neighboring country of Djibouti.
Gold expert Theo Gray says that no official in Ethiopia could have been so stupid as to sign for such an obvious fake shipment and suspects that the switch took place after delivery.
"Someone walked in each day with a new fake bold bar and walked out with a real one," said Gray.
This leads us to 2010 and the mysterious report concerning phoney gold bars dating to the Clinton administration some 15 years ago. As we reported in the Feb. 1 issue of American Free Press, the Chinese government discovered it had been swindled last October after analyzing nearly 6,000 gold-plated tungsten bars received from the U.S. that had reportedly been stored in fort Knox for years.
The chief suspects immediately became Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers, all top U.S. financial officials during the Clinton administration and all strong supporters of Israel, undoubtedly spawning the account about the real gold from Fort Knox having been secretly taken to that country.
Gray added that such "top-quality fake London gold delivery bars" would coust thousands of dollars apiece to produce because such a bar has a considerable amount of real gold in it.
"You'd wtill make a nice profit considering that a real one is worth closer to $400,000" added Gray. "A lower budget version could be made. Such a bar would still feel and sound right and be only very slightly underweight, while costing less than $500 to produce in quantity. It would not pass X-ray fluorescence, and whether it passes a chemical test would depend on how thick the electroplating is."
Rob Kirby, a Canadian precious metal analyst who has watched this story since the beginning says. "I know folks who have copies of the original shipping documents with dates and exact weights of ‘tungsten' bars shipped to Fort Knox."
AFP spoke with Kirby on Feb. 3, and heis reluctant and fearful to divulge his sources right now.
ADDING TO THE ENIGMATIC GOLD HEIST
Other odd happenings since this alleged Fort Knox heist may make more sense when brought back to light.
In February 2004, the New York district attorney searched the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) offices. But the details were never disclosed. Now it is reported that no one knows what ever happened to Senior Vice President Stuart Smith, whose name was on the search warrant. After his offices were raided, Smith too "administrative leave" from NYMEX and has not been heard from since. NYMEX is where one goes to find the records of "smelter of origin" and "lineage" of every gold bar ever settled on the exchange. It could prove that the amount of gold in question could not have possibly come from U.S. mining operations.
Also, two months after the NYMEX mystery, Rothschild & Sons Ltd, the London-based investment bank, withdrew from trading gold commodities in London "to review its operations.
A Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee writer in 2007 suspected
that "Rothschildis leaving the gold business at this time
because something is amiss. They know a big scandal is coming,
and they don't want to be a part of it."
|Top|
The question of whether there is an hold in Fort Knox, Ky., has lingered for many years. Of Course, "national Security" is invoked whenever any American might entertain the notion of visiting the fort to see the gold firsthand. That includes pesky reporters.
The real question may be whether the fort's gold is genuine, not so much whether there are 368,000 bars of "bullion" at that famous military base in the first place.
Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has his questions about the gold in Fort Knox. That's why he wants language mandationg an official audit of the gold depository added to his landmark legislation to audit the federal Reserve (H.R. 1207).
"My attitude is, let's just find out what's there," Paul told CBS News' Market Watch on Jan 20.
But the issue of bankruptcy is the key point. President Obama admitted on national television last year that the U.S. is bankrupt. So can a nation with an official national debt of around $14 trillion (not including unfunded liabilities, which total tens of trillions of additional dollars) and annual trade deficits of hundred of billions really own anything? In other words, whatever gold may be left at Fort Knox, of whatever status or purity, is likely owed to some other nation or financial institution as collateral on the never-ending deficit spending of the U.S.
It would not be surprising if Fort Knox itself - at least the part where the gold is said to be stored - is owned by some consortium somewhere and not really a free-and-clear asset of Uncle Sam.
The late Gus Stelzer, the longtime General Motors executive and author who thoroughly dissected U.S. trade and monetary policies, noted that in 1947 the United States had entered into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) with Canada and Western European nations. By 1970 foreign goods imported into the U.S. rose by a whopping 567 percent. Foreign holders of U.S. dollars, which were still eligible for convertibility to gold under the 1944 Bretton Woods pact, became nervous when America started :buying more of the world's goods on the cuff without shoring up its gold reserves," Stelzer wrote.
"By 1970 over $65 billion of surplus U.S. currency was floating among other nations whereas our gold reserves were only about $11 billion. So, they (other nations) started cashing in their American IOUs, causing a run on U.S. gold reserves, which prompted President Nixon to repudiate the Bretton Woods Agreement on Aug. 15, 1971. He said the dollar will now ‘float,'" Stelzer explained in his noted book: The Nightmare of Camelot: An Expose of the Free Trade Trojan Horse.
So the golden question is How far did this run on U.S. gold
reserves go and is it continuing in any form today?
|Top|
Round rock, Texas - John Stadmiller, who runs the Republic broadcasting Network, is adding another network that he says will be a "town hall meeting" to capture the attention of more mainstream Americans who are seeking answers in today's turbulent world but will never get them from corporate media.
The new Elected Representative Network, or ERN, will feature elected state representatives who will share their valuable insights and gather equally valuable input from the public. Then, these representatives can better represent the people in their important legislative work.
This American Free Press writer visited Stadmiller's studios in Round Rock on Feb. 1, when Stadmiller and his wife, Sandra, predicted ERN would debut in mid-to-latter February. The web site: ERNTownhall.com.
"The people have buckets full of questions and thimbles full of answers," Stadmiller said, while noting that ERN will function as a gateway for getting those answers out to the voters.
State representatives who plan to do radio shows on ERN include Sam Rohrer of Pennsylvania, a noted Real ID critic, Randy Brogdon of Oklahoma, an equally ardent opponent of the North American Union and the related NAFTA Superhighway; and jim Guest of Missouri, who, like Rohrer, works with officials from a member of states to urge them not to participate in converting state drivers licenses into micro chipped national ID cards. There is a lot of overlap in their concerns. And, of course, these and other seated state representatives will cover many other pivotal issues on ERN. More representatives who will take part on ERN will be announced later.
"This has never been done in the annals of radio," Stadmiller added. "We are going to get as close to a real ‘statesman' thing as we can here," referring to the lost art of statesmanship where honor, honesty and morality were the underpinnings of public service.
The diea for ERN came up in conversations with Quince Eddens, a friend of Rep. Rohrer, said Stadmiller. Sandra added: "The timing has never been better" for such a venture.
The essential aspect of this development is that state representatives should act as a barrier between the people and federal abuse and help the people they represent demand fundamental changes from the federal government. The states - when the constitution was crafted - created a limited federal government to be their agent, not vice versa. But we live in a world where the states are bossed around as mere administrative provinces of the federal government and its banking masters. It's not supposed to be that way.
An ally of Rohrer is Aaron Bolinger, a Real ID opponent from Pennsylvania who works hard to help people effectively communicate with House and Senate members at the state level.
Bolinger insists that U.S. senators should be required to report regularly in-person to the state legislature, because U.S. senators were designed to represent the states in the constitutional system.
That perspective and many other sound ideas are certain to come up on the ERN network that Stadmiller believes could be a turning point for a troubled America as he works on expanding the reach of his radio networks into more markets.
This writer and AFT'sMichael Collins Piper boh hast regular
radio shows on Stadmiller's radio network, Republic Broadcasting
Network (RBN). Go to www.RepublicBroadcasting.org.
|Top|
Much has been made recently about the supposed economic recovery. A few blips in a few statistics and many believe our troubles are all over. Of course, they have to redefine recovery as "jobless" to account for the lack of improvement on Main Street. But the banks have money, Wall Street is chugging along and the administration would like to get on with other agenda.
They have even set up a commission to investigate the crisis as if it were all in the past.
The truth is that Americans are still losing jobs and the Fed is still inflating. We are on this trajectory for the long haul. The claim has been made many times that this administration has only had a year to clean up the mess of the last administration. I wish they would at least get started. Instead of reversing course, they are maintaining Bush's policies full speed ahead. They are even keeping the Bush appointee in charge of the Federal Reserve. They are not even making token efforts at change in economic policy. And for all the talk of transparency, we hear that some powerful senators will do all they can to block a simple audit of the powerful and secretive Federal Reserve.
We have been on a disastrous course for a long time. The money supply has doubled in the last year, our debt is unsustainable, the value of the dollar is going to continue its drop, and those Americans who understand where we are headed feel helpless and held hostage by foolish policymakers in Washington.
When the bills finally come due and the dollar stops working, we are in for some real social, economic and political chaos. That is, unless we take some major steps now to allow for a peaceful transition in the future. These steps are laid out in my legislation to legalize competing currencies.
First of all, no one should be compelled by law to operate in Federal Reserve notes if they prefer an alternative. Only gold and silver can constitutionally be legal tender, not paper money. Instead, it is illegal to conduct business using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve notes. Simply legalizing the Constitution should be a no-brainer to anyone who took an oath of office. Consequently, private mints should be allowed to mint gold and silver coins. They would be subject to fraud and counterfeit laws, of course, and people would be free to use their coins or stay with Federal Reserve notes, as they see fit. Finally, we should abolish taxes on gold and silver, which put precious metals at a competitive disadvantage to paper money.
The federal Reserve is a government-sanctioned banking cartel
that has held far too much power for far too long and is in the
end stages of running the dollar into the ground, and our economy
along with it. The very least Congress can do, if they are not
willing to abolish the Fed, and perhaps not even conduct a serious
audit of it, is to allow citizens the freedom to defend themselves
from being completely wiped out by their monopoly power.
|Top|
On Jan. 28 the Senate voted to confirm Ben Bernanke for his second term as Federal Reserve chairman. Though he won by a wide margin, the vote is being called one of the closest ever for the top banker spot, with 30 senators voting against him. The naysayers included 18 Republicans and 11 Democrats.
Some powerful, mainstream senators voted against Bernanke, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Arlen Specter (D-Penn.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) And Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.). Several national publications, including The Chicago Tribune and The Dallas Morning News, also published editorials recommending against reconfirming Chairman Bernanke.
Commentators attributed the large number of "No" votes to the surge in populist anger over bernanke, who has been seen to have come to the rescue of greedy Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.
See the roll call vote below to find out how your senator voted on the issue. Our congratulations to those senators who voted "no."
Democratic : YES Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Michael Bennet(CO), Jeff Bingaman, Sherrod Brown, Roland Burris, Robert Byrd, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kay Hagan, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, John Kerry, Paul Kirk, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Blanche Lincoln, Claire McCaskill, Robert Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Tom Udall, Mark Udall(CO), Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Ron Wyden
Democratic: NO Mark Begich, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold, Al Franken, Tom Harkin, Edward Kaufman, Jeff Merkley, Arlen Specter, Sheldon Whitehouse
Independant: YES Joseph Lieberman
Independant: NO Bernard Sanders
Republican: YES Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso, Bob Bennett, Kit Bond, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Mike Enzi, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Jon Kyl, Richard Lugar, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich
Republican: NO Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, John Cornyn,
Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Chuck Grassley, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, James Inhofe, George Lemieux, John McCain, James Risch,
Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, John Thune, David
Vitter, Roger Wicker
|Top|
Rand Paul, a Kentucky eye doctor, is not running for a local office in his first political endeavor. While his well-known father, Ron, is the longtime 14th District Texas Congressman noted for his opposition to the Federal Reserve and big government, Rand is attempting to go from novice to the higher plane of U.S. senator in one shot. His platform is much like his father's.
The young Paul told CNN at the time of the first national tea party convention in Nashville, Tenn. that hundreds of smaller tea parties which culminated in the convention Feb. 4-7 are mainly what catapulted him from so-called underdog status six months ago to a much better rating now. He also told CNN that, having secured ex-Alaska governor Sarah Palin's endorsement around the time that she gave the keynote speech at the national tea party, he feels victory is a distinct possibility.
Like independent Republican Debra Medina's bold attempt to unseat two-term "NAFTA Superhighway" Gov. Rick Perry in Texas, with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison also in that tight race, Rand is up against tough odds.
Besides aiming for the U.S. Senate right out of the proverbial Kentucky starting gate, he is taking on Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in a bid for Jim Bunning's former Senate seat. Bunning retired after two terms.
Grayson is an established office-holder with views similar to Paul's, though Paul has beat him in most polls while raising some $1.8 million, including $650,000 in the last quarter of 2009.
The primary election in Kentucky is May 18, with the polls open from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., according to Grayson's office. Notably, Paul asked Grayson to step down for a time as secretary of state because he oversees elections, including election machines, in that capacity. Grayson seems unwilling to do so.
The Medina and Paul campaigns are two major ones to closely watch during this mid-term election cycle. Like Medina, Paul is optimistic and working hard to shake the media's automatic "underdog" tag applied to non-Establishment candidates.
"It's just been amazing . . . we started out 11 points down and we're actually 19 points up in an independent media poll," Paul said during the final part of CNN's series Welcome to the Tea Party about the Nashville event. "I give a lot of credit to the tea parties. . . . In my little town of Bowling Green, 700 people showed up for a tea party; in Louisville, 4,000 people."
Most people, especially tea partiers, are "worried about debt," he added. "And that's what you find at these tea parties . . . they are mostly concerned about the fiscal insolvency of our nation." He dismissed claims by the CNN anchor that the tea parties are "divisive" and mainly involve Obama-bashing.
However, this traveling AFP writer has found considerable distrust about these tea parties. It revolves around the perception that the tea parties are being hijacked by a Republican Party that no longer controls the White House, the Senate or the House. The concern is the Republicans may try to steer tea partiers away from alternative parties and fresh ideas and coax them and their money back into the Republican Party's "big tent" that is no stranger to big government, massive spending and no win overseas wars.
More than one caller to this writer's radio show on Feb. 6 said well-known tea party speakers in recent months belittled the 9-11 truth movement and said incendiary things about Iran, alleging that neo-con warmongering is creeping into the tea party movement.
Tea parties attended by this writer in mid-to-late 2009 were mainly about opposing national healthcare. While some budgetary and tax concerns were evident, the more promising movement to audit the Federal Reserve and strive for true "financial healthcare"—a movement that heated up in 2009 as the tea parties kicked into high gear—still received no official mention at a large Washington D.C. tea party and almost no mention at a smaller one in Kalamazoo, Mich.
Moreover, many observers would point to Mrs. Palin being John McCain's former running mate when the veteran Arizona senator last ran for president as an indication that she is a big-government Republican. An Internet video broadcast before she was well-known in the political scene showed her professing admiration for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul when he ran for president in 2008 as a Republican.
But she soon became McCain's running mate and appeared to have little in common with Rand's father Ron on most key issues.
As noted at the RandPaul2010.com website, when Palin was asked by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace why she endorsed Paul, Palin replied: "Because he's a federalist and he wants the states to have more say and as we respect the 10th Amendment in our Constitution, he wants the states to have more say. . . ."
RAND COACHES AND DONATES
Rand Paul, as a founder of his local Lion's Club, donates eye surgery to the poor and donates his time to coach local sports teams. He and his wife of 19 years, the former Kelley Ashby, have three boys. Dr. Paul is the third of five children born to Carol and Ron Paul. He grew up in Lake Jackson, Tex., attended Baylor University, graduated from Duke Medical School in 1988, completed a general surgery internship at Georgia Baptist Medical Center in Atlanta and completed his residency in ophthalmology at Duke University.
Upon completing his training in 1993, the Pauls moved to Bowling Green to start their family and his ophthalmology practice.
On key issues, he "opposes bailouts of private industry," while noting "every dollar we print to service our debt, reduces the value of the money in your pocket."
Thus, he will "fight to strengthen the value of our dollar so our purchasing power is not destroyed by the sneakiest tax of all: inflation."
On the Federal Reserve, he sounds less resolute than his dad, who wrote a book called End the Fed. Rand stops short of ending it, saying: "Given this incredible power given to a semi-private institution, one wonders why we don't hear more about the Fed and its actions from the Congress. As senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system."
Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has the same view and seems to support Paul's candidacy. On energy, Paul believes "our energy crisis stems from too much government intervention" and on health care, he echoes that market stance:
"Like other areas of the economy where the federal government wields its heavy hand, healthcare is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. As senator, I would ensure that real free market principles are applied to fix this problem."
He also is on record supporting a balanced budget amendment, believes life starts at conception and opposes federal funds for abortion, and believes there should be tax reductions to help parents who choose to home school. He also opposes amnesty for illegal aliens.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the deputy editor for American Free Press. Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events they cover for AFP. Mark welcomes your comments and inputs as well as story leads. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Are you sick and tired of waiting for Washington to rein in Wall Street and shut down the Money Trust? A new financial movement is putting the power back into the hands of Main Street by giving consumers the ability to take their money out of the coffers of the so-called "too-big-to-fail" financial firms and put it into accounts at smaller, locally owned community banks.
Called the "Move Your Money" campaign, new technology on the Internet is allowing individuals and businesses to tap into online databases to search for local community banks. All a person has to do is enter his zip code, and he can find a local bank near his home. The idea is that he can then close down his account at one of the top banks, such as Bank of America, JP Morgan or Citibank, and open a new one at his community bank. Upon entering my own zip code, this writer found 21 banks within 30 miles of my home.
To most populists, the very notion of fractional reserve banking—and the profits it generates for even small-time bankers in the form of interest—is enough to turn one's stomach. However, the realities of conducting life and business for most Americans unfortunately necessitates working within the framework and calls for using Federal Reserve notes to some capacity. Consequently, most people have to use banks.
And that is what makes the Move Your Money campaign appealing to so many. If you don't like the greed endemic to Wall Street's biggest firms, you can get out and stop enabling it.
Robert Johnson, the brains behind the big bank boycott, believes that if enough people move their money out of the megabanks, spreading it thinly across the country, that they could accomplish what Washington has so far refused to do: Break up the Money Trust.
"The big banks on Wall Street, propped up by taxpayer money and government guarantees, have had a record year, making record profits while returning to the highly leveraged activities that brought our economy to the brink of disaster," wrote Johnson in a recent commentary promoting his plan. "Meanwhile, America's Main Street community banks—the vast majority of which avoided the banquet of greed and corruption that created the toxic economic swamp we are still fighting to get ourselves out of—are struggling. . . .As a result, a system which was already dangerously concentrated at the top has only become more so."
Johnson is optimistic that his movement can impact the big boys.
"JP Morgan/Chase, Citi,Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs may be ‘too big to fail'—but they are not too big to feel the impact of hundreds of thousands of people taking action to change a broken financial and political system," says Johnson. "Let them gamble with their own money, not yours. Let's turn big banks into smaller banks. We'll all be better off—and safer—as a result."
To search for a local bank in your neighborhood, log onto moveyourmoney.info or visit AFP's site at AmericanFreePress.net and click on the "Move Your Money" link.
Christopher Petherick is a journalist and publisher based in Maryland. For more information, see his website at www.brandywinehouse.us or write directly to BRANDYWINE HOUSE BOOKS AND MEDIA, P.O. Box 638, Cheltenham, MD 20623. Petherick encourages all readers with Internet access to sign up for AFP's free weekly email newsletter. It's loaded with house news and special offers available only to newsletter recipients and AFP web site users.
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 we learn more about the killing of seven CIA agents at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Dec. 30, 2009, it is clear U.S. intelligence, and its Jordanian counterpart, the General Intelligence Department, sometimes known as the Mukhabarat, underestimated Arab revolutionaries and their allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Ever since the wipe-out of the CIA team, which had been targeting Arab revolutionaries and Pakistani Taliban leaders for assassination, the Mukhabarat has tried to downplay its part in what turned out to be a disastrous operation. The Mukhabarat, which likes to think it is as good as the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, had convinced the CIA it had a double agent who could deliver up Osama bin Laden or, at the very least, his supposed deputy, Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, for assassination.
The agent assassin was Humam Kalil Abu Malal al- Balawi, aged 31. Balawi was a highly educated doctor, born in Kuwait, of Palestinian origin. He was married to a Turkish journalist but turned against the West because of his anger at the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza where the Israeli military committed many war crimes.
Just like other outspoken Muslims over the past three decades, Balawi was particularly upset about foreigners occupying Muslim lands. His views on that issue mirrored the ethos that motivated Afghan freedom fighters, whom the U.S. supported in their war against the Soviets.
In 2001, Balawi and his wife moved from Turkey to Jordan where they had two children. He worked in a Palestinian refugee camp outside Amman, the Jordanian capital, and soon became very angry about the plight of Palestinians throughout the region, especially those under Israeli control. At some point in the past couple of years, he used online postings to express his views about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as well as the developing war in Afghanistan. He also condemned Israeli military strategy in Gaza and the West Bank.
His Internet activity brought him to the attention of Jordanian intelligence in its headquarters in the Jordanian capital, Amman. Within that site is an area set aside for joint CIA-Mukhabarat operations and for the interrogation of suspects seized by Jordan or secretly renditioned to Amman by the CIA. The Mukhabarat has often been accused of torturing suspects held there.
In or around 2007, Balawi found himself in the hands of Mukhabarat interrogators and was held in the section of its headquarters reserved for so-called "high value suspects." That is where the real story begins. What we can reasonably surmise is that the Jordanians saw in Balawi the ideal agent for infiltrating the core leadership of Arab revolutionary groups, provided of course that he could be turned, known in some circles as "de-radicalized." It was a torture technique the CIA tinkered with in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and in secret prisons across the globe.
In pursuing that goal, however, the CIA and the Jordanians ignored the fact Balawi did not arrive at his "radical views" by accident. He was, after all, a highly intelligent individual, who was willing to die for his cause.
Balawi may have quickly realized just how desperate the CIA and Mukhabarat were to recruit him, especially when they finally promised him massive sums of money for his services. From his perspective, they were providing him with the opportunity to fulfill his dream of striking at the West.
Once he became an agent for the CIA, he was sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan to infiltrate the Taliban and other Arab groups there. While we may never know the exact nature of his relationships with these organizations, it is fair to assume he was well briefed by them in his new role as their triple agent.
The fact that he was able to become a valuable and trusted asset of the CIA and Jordanians indicates that his Arab revolutionary handlers were far more sophisticated than the CIA or Jordanians.
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|
When President Obama reluctantly agreed to begin sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan late last year, did he do it under pressure from the neo-conservatives and the military-industrial complex? In a recent article, film maker John Hankey points to a secret war going on inside the Beltway that pits old-guard neo-conservative internationalists against the na?ve administration that is currently occupying the White House. It's a life or death battle, says Hankey, with the American people caught in the middle.
In a Feb. 3 interview, this writer told Hankey that the situation is reminiscent of George Orwell's "perpetual war" combined with Mad magazine's "Spy vs. Spy."
In Orwell's book 1984, a tyrannical government used the notion of perpetual war to keep a lock on power and hold its citizens in check. Contrast that with the famous "Spy vs. Spy" black-and-white cartoon in Mad magazine, where two ruthless spies attempt to carry out missions but are constantly foiled by each other.
Hankey cited the false-flag Fort Hood massacre and how former vice president Dick Cheney is incensed that Obama isn't using the incident to escalate our war against Islam. This same "pro-war, pro-death" neo-con Israel-first faction also manufactured the Christmas Day underwear bombing.
"Their goal was not only to make Obama look weak, but to send a message," Hankey explains. "Deliver our agenda or you'll have another huge terrorist attack to deal with."
Since a legacy has already been established that Obama is soft on terror, one more major "al Qaeda" event would effectively signal the end of his presidency. This process began when Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, appeared on "60 Minutes" and called out Obama.
"The general flexed his muscles and showed Obama's weakness," stressed Hankey. "In essence, he asked, ‘Are you going to take on the entire military and defy us?' The military-industrial complex is completely stacked in favor of those who are pro-Cheney. McChrystal's intent was clear. ‘Can you take us on? No, you can't.'"
As a result, Obama is caving on Gitmo, pulling out of Iraq, holding open 9-11 trials in New York City and increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. Hankey proceeded to compare Obama's situation to that of John F. Kennedy, and how a "programmed" patsy killer at Fort Hood and two party-crashers were overt warnings from the "old murder network" who engineered the 1963 slaying in Dallas.
During Kennedy's time, the CIA and Pentagon ran a huge war machine and drug trafficking network in Vietnam. Today, the U.S. military budget surpasses that of every other country combined, while Afghanistan produces 90 percent of the world's heroin. In addition, the United States is doing Israel's dirty work by fighting its enemy with Iran certainly in their sights.
As it stands now, Cheney's Zionist cabal is winning the public relations battle, making Obama and his befuddled cohorts look like na?ve babes in the woods. As such, Hankey asserts that "a military coup, of sorts, has taken place."
On Feb. 3, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked CIA Director Leon Panetta, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and FBI Director Robert Mueller about the likelihood of another U.S. terror attack within the next three to six months. They all agreed in their answers: "Certain."
There aren't any good guys in this scenario. Instead, what we're seeing is a power grab. Which faction will control billions of dollars in black-budget profits, and which faction will set the agenda for a half-trillion dollar defense budget?
More importantly, who will reap the benefits: Obama's cabal or the Cheney-Zionist cabal?
Right now, the Obama crowd knows that their "Spy vs. Spy" counterparts have effectively orchestrated three strikes: the June 1 shooting outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark., Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's Fort Hood bloodbath and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's escapade on Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit.
On the other hand, Attorney General Eric Holder is fully aware that a cabal within the CIA, Pentagon, and Mossad would be devastated if 9-11 trials were held in a New York City civilian court. To prevent such an occurrence, serious threats have been leveled by the actual 9-11 plotters.
So, in the meantime, Obama's people are scurrying to bolster their own intelligence network not to fight "Muslim extremists," but those who, as Hankey writes, are "wresting by force of power from the hands of the president" the control mechanisms to maintain their hold on the vast profits from our drug and war machines.
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Neo-conservatives and Israel-firsters in the Senate are trying to provoke a war with Iran by, among other things, imposing crippling sanctions on companies that process the Persian country's crude oil.
The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 (S. 2799, introduced by sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) in mid November, passed the Senate on Jan. 28. American Free Press would have run the entire vote in this edition, but senators were too cowardly to put their names down officially for a roll call vote, so a voice vote was called instead. The bill easily passed, according to the Senate leadership. It is currently sitting in the House, where it is expected to pass any day now and be sent to the White House for the president's signature.
Right before the vote, some of the most powerful senators on both the Democrat and Republican sides of the aisle rose to sing the praises of the provocative American Israel Public Affairs committee-backed measure.
"This has been a long time in coming and I have had the distinguished Republican leader contact me on more than one occasion asking when we were going to be able to move this bill," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) added his support, saying: "I hope we will be able to impose these and other necessary actions against this tyrannical, oppressive, brutal regime in Iran that I think is coming apart.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Added his praise, saying: "This measure is crafted in such a way that it could actually become effective, with America alone not having to depend on the cooperation of the other countries that tend to be less concerned about whether Iran ultimately becomes armed with nuclear weapons. So this is an important piece of legislation as the majority leader said, as Sen. McCain has said and Sen. Lieberman has said. It can actually make a difference."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the bill's author, wrapped up the debate right before the vote, saying: "Today we consider important legislation to confront a serious threat to the security of the U.S., of our close ally Israel, and of our other allies in the Middle East and Europe - the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. This is one of the most serious foreign policy challenges facing the United States today."
Dodd, during his lengthy speech on the Senate floor, cited previous meddlesome measures aimed at Iran, which never saw the light of day. These have now been rolled into his current bill.
Says Dodd:
In order to maximize that pressure, just as we did last year, we have incorporated a number of ideas from our Senate colleagues into one committee bill.
Sens. Bayh, Lieberman, and Kyl proposed penalties on companies that support Iran's import of refined petroleum products or bolster its domestic capacity.
Sens. Brownback and Casey proposed authorizing state and local governments to divest from companies involved in critical business with Iran.
As I mentioned, Sen. Schumer proposed banning government contracts to firms that provide technology used by the Iranian regime to monitor or disrupt communications of its citizens with one another and the outside world. Sen Menendez proposed targeting sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, its affiliates and front organizations for supporting terrorism and contributing to proliferation, and Sen. Johanns pressed for renewed targeting of Iran's proxy Hezbollah in the same way. Sen. Bunning urged tighter reporting requirements on sanctions.
In a recent column, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan laid out the historical significance of Dodd's bill. "Cutting off a country's oil or gas is a proven path to war," writes Buchanan.
It happened in 1941, when the United States froze Japanese assets that prevented the country from being able to buy U.S. oil, said buchanan. The Japanese were left with no choice but to seize the only oil in reach in the Dutch East Indies. This put it on a collision course with the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor.
This was quite similar, says Buchanan, to when Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser threatened to shut down the strait between the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba, that would have cut off about 95 percent of Israel's oil supply. The Israeli response was to launch a pre-emptive war, which destroyed Egypt's air force and landed Israeli troops on the Straits of Tiran.
What's the point of this bill, asks Buchanan?
"The senate is trying to force Obama's hand, box him in, restrict his freedom of action, by making him impose sanctions that would cut off the negotiating track and put us on a track to war - a war to deny Iran weapons that the U.S. Intelligence community said in December 2007 Iran gave up trying to acquire in 2003," says Buchanan.
It's all part of a plan for some in Congress to do what the White House has so far refused: Start a war with Iran.
Buchanan quoted MConnel, who has made it clear the Senate is itching to do AIPAC's bidding.
"If the obama administration will not take action against
this regime, then Congress must," said Sen. Mcconnell.
|Top|
South Carolina's government recently passed a new law mandating that any "subversive" group in the state must register with government officials. Concerns are growing that this may be a stepping stone to the future registration of political dissidents and other outspoken critics of the government.
South Carolina's "Subversive Activities Registration Act," which just took effect, is an offshoot of general American-establishment thinking on anything that even hints at subversion or the "T" word terrorism. Such thinking casts such a broad net that anyone could get caught in it - including the U.S. government and the South carolina government itself.
The copy of the two-page act American Free Press has in its possession says that it regards as potential subversive entities "every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United states, or this state, or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means."
That quote is from the first plank under Sect. 23-29-20, which is the "definitions" part of thisw "law." Under Title 23/Law Enforcement and Public Safety, it was set up as Chapter 29 - Subversive Activities Registration Act (SARA).
First of all, to contemplate such an act, let alone create, debate and pass it, one would have to be ignorant of, or forgetful about, the basic principle that the mere passage of a law does not mean law-breakers will step forward and reveal themselves - in advance of their crimes, no less.
For example, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a true statement, because if laws were made to prohibit any and all gun ownership, only the criminally inclined would make the effort to get guns illegally. Doing so gives them a decisive edge when committing robberies and other crimes. Law-abiding individuals naturally become defenseless against law-breakers, and the police with their legal gun monopoly cannot, by their own admission, protect everyone. From there, the only people with guns are police and criminals. Crime rates spike because non-criminal residents and business owners are disarmed, and armed thugs know it and prey upon the defenseless. This is Reality 101.
Based on that reality, would a potential armed criminal register in advance with the state of South Carolina, pay a $5 fee and be on record saying that he or she might murder someone someday? Well, South carolina's SARA assumes as much.
The act's "Subversive Agent Form" asks you, the "subversive," to pay a $5 filing fee to the South Carolina secretary of state. The first line you fill in is "Name of Subversive Organization"; the second is Name of Chief Agent of Organization"; then "Address of Chief Agent."
It then asks for the form-filer to check yes or no after the following question: "Do you or your organization directly or indirectly advocate, advise, teach, practice the duty or necessity of controlling seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, the state of South Carolina or any political subdivision thereof?"
Lastly, the one-page form wants you to name all other members of your group living in South Carolina, and sign and date. Thus, the state expects any of the above-listed groups or organizations to first assume themselves to be subversive - when a group might consider itself patriotic but the state might not share that definition. From there, the group is supposed to acknowledge their "subversive" orientation on the form and pony up their revenue to the state.
But as in the gun example, a truly subversive organization will not fill out the form in the first place. If anyone ever fills out even one of these forms, it would be a group or organization that is law-abiding and simply wants to avoid trouble down the road, since filing the form and paying the fee is part of the law.
Yet, an honorable group will not fill out a form falsely saying it's subversive, and a subversive group will not fill out the form admitting it's subversive. Good people should not follow bad laws, and bad people won't bother with such laws by their very nature.
The grand irony is that if any "assembly" or "political
part" has truly subverted our Constitution and economy,
it's many of the Democrats and Republicans with their mega-bailouts,
soaring debts and endless wars; as well as the South Carolina
legislature with this clear attack on the First Amendment.
|Top|
Another phenomenon created within this New World Order army is the way our government and military are increasing their use of "private" or "independent" contractors. In the past, these people were always known simply as mercenaries. Call them what you will, mercenaries are now a major component of the way our government wages war.
According to Global research:
the growing use of private armies not only subjects targets populations to savage warfare but makes it easier for the White House to subvert domestic public opinion and wage wars.
Americans are less inclined to oppose a war that is being fought by hired foreign mercenaries, even when their own tax dollars are being squandered to fund it.
"The increasing use of contractors, private forces, or, as some would say, ‘mercenaries,' makes wars easier to begin and to fight - it just takes money and not the citizenry," said Michael Rather, of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights. "To the extent a population is called upon to go to war, there is resistance, a necessary resistance to prevent wars of self-aggrandizement, foolish wars, and in the case of the United States, hegemonic imperialist wars."
Remember, at any given moment, there might be as many - if not more - mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as there are U.S. military forces. According to The Christian Science Monitor, in early 2008, the number of mercenaries fighting in Iraq numbered more than 190,000. Remember, in addition to the benefit of not drafting U.S. citizens to fight these perpetual wars (and thus avoid incurring the wrath and resistance of the American public), mercenaries enjoy the luxury of not having to comply with the military rules of engagement. And the stories of atrocities committed by U.S.-employed mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan are too numerous to list
Consider the case where Blackwater (now called Xe) mercenaries mowed down 17 Iraqi citizens in an unprovoked attack. Of course, no one at Blackwater was held accountable for these murders. Reports of abuse, cruelty and savagery by mercenaries in Iraq are commonplace. According to the Global research report, "Many soldiers of fortune on private payrolls previously served dictators in South Africa, Chile and elsewhere.
The Washington Post quotes Brig. Gen. Karl Horst, an advisor to the U.S. Joint Force command, as saying, "These guys [mercenaries] run loose in Iraq and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force. They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."
And you wonder why the United states is viewed so negatively around the world?
Granted, there is a place and proper use for mercenaries. Fred E. Foldvary, senior editor of The Progress Report, observes:
One alternative to U.S. military action against terrorists who have attacked the U.S. and other countries and are threatening further attacks, is to enact Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant letters of Marque and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty person in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forces used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.
"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a letter of Marque and reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.
Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also be international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who were in Afghanistan.
That is exactly what Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) attempted to do. He proposed H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters.
However, neither the congress nor the White House - Democrat or Republican - has any intention of following the Constitution; therefore, Letters of Marque and reprisal were never authorized. As a result, no authority has been granted to these mercenaries to wage war of behalf of anyone, especially not the people of the United states.
But what unauthorized mercenaries do accomplish is to fulfill
the demands of internationalists and globalists to use unaccountable
and uncontrolled (at least by normal military protocals) private
armies for their own personal and profitable.purposes.
|Top|
The mainstream media
continue to misled the American people. Headlines that proclaim
"economic growth" and "stimulus at work"
and "job programs" are all intended to keep the stock
market solvent. The amazing thing is that the American people
continue to accept these rose colored news stories with a degree
of credibility.
Meanwhile, no one seems to be analyzing the obvious: Congress raised the debt limit another $1.9 trillion dollars. Let's just round it off to $2 trillion. In addition, the budget projections for 2010 will probably reach close to $4 trillion (at least $3.5 trillion). A national debt of $1.3 trillion is $45,000 for every man, woman and child.
By the way, the budget deficit will exceed a projected $1.6 trillion. Notice the delineation of dollars - trillions - that's tr-tr-tr-trillions.
The government is supposedly headed in the right direction. Now, if you believe that, you'll believe that Elvis is really alive and selling computers in Topeka.
The mainstream media is gullible, ignorant or controlled. It's no wonder that big newspapers have folded. The American people are becoming skeptical about American propaganda. Yes, propaganda. Just like the old Soviet Union propaganda.
Propaganda, according to Webster's Dictionary means: "Any systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, etc. to further one's own cause or to damage an opposing one."
It is also listed as:"Ideas, doctrines, or allegations so spread; now often used disparagingly to connote deception or distortion."
Study the definition of propaganda carefully. If you've read my past articles you'll be able to figure out our mainstream media. The media has "owners," boards of directors, coronate structures, etc. Who are they? What do we know about them? How can we trust any "news" without knowing and understanding the "people" - the "ones" behind the story.
Is it any wonder that the news media supports the positions of the central government? Think about it. The Golf of Tonkin headlines. The Pan am 103 stories. The mining of the harbors in Nicaragua. The mainstream media not only supported the CIA-influenced "information," they sold it to the American people.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were drilled into the minds of the American people, non-stop. Waco, Ruby Ridge, all the "so-called" facts reinforced daily. Yet, no one really knows the people behind this massive network of organized propaganda.
Think, how many times have you read, seen on TV or heard on the radio any information on the background of these media poser brokers. They are so powerful that they can sell wars to the American people. They can have Americans believing that the Branch Davidian compound and the people and children inside, "deserved" their fate. They can influence elections, propelling those candidates that support their agenda into office.
Is it any wonder that America is at war? Is it any mystery how the two political parties can exist despite the massive failings of both?
Not to me! America has the exact government and policies that the major mainstream media wants.
There is but one word to describe this dilemma: Danger.
Let me advise that the Constitution ensures and protects a "free press," not a"controlled press."
It's time to investigate the "owners" and "controllers" of American media. What do we really know about them? Do we accept, as gospel, everything we see on TV or read in the paper?
This process must become important to the American people. America desperately needs a viable third political party. America also needs to know the people/owners behind the news we consume. Transparency, the new buzz word, should be applied to the news media.
I have drawn tremendous criticism and opposition for having stated on the Greta Van Susteren show that, "Israel, through its powerful lobby, American Israel Public Affairs committee [AIPAC], has a stranglehold on our Congress."
I've been labeled an anti-Semite, a bigot, an anti-government activist, a criminal, a felon - on and on. So be it. But I know who controls this propaganda machine.
In fact, everyone know it, but politicians will not even whisper it. Just think who, in the mainstream media, has ever investigated Israel's stranglehold on our government? No one. Nobody. Zilch.
You've heard it right here. Not only do the Israelis have a stranglehold on our government at all levels, but they manifest their power and control through the media. Israel's advocates own much of our media and control the rest with revenue. Yes, money. Look carefully at those big, full-page adds in the paper or those 30 second spots on TV and you'll wise up. In a heartbeat.
That is if you are still free to think outside the box of the mainstream media "propaganda."
Get back at me.
|Top|
Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable. In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.
First of all is timing. It wouldn't go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now - if the politicians have any thing to say about it.
The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully seven-eights of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.
Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, boluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently say in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing or reducing foreign and is not up for serious debate any time soon.
The third caveat is what is included the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers' salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.
I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country - I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference.
Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the Constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the Constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people.
If government would stick only to what it was authorized to
do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems
would resolve themselves.
|Top|
If thousands of people had been slaughtered just across the U.S. northern border in Canada these past four yrears, U.S. citizens would be in fear for their lives an d demand that the border be sealed by armed American soldiers. So, why has there been little panic when more than five times the number of people who died on Sept. 11 have been killed in Mexico in the same period?
One reason Americans have not taken much notice of the slaughter south of the border is that the mainstream media and Congress have paid little attention to it. From December 2006 through February 2010, 17, 960 people have died in Mexico, some of them in the most barbaric ways. In some instances, drug gangs have beheaded as many as 15 people at a time. On Feb.5, in Ciudad Juarez, gunmen burst into a party and shot dead 13 teenagers, while wounding 17. News reports claimed it was a drug hit gone bad. The fact is no one has been safe from the savagery, including women and children, police officers, journalists, judges and members of the Mexican military.
Gun battles between heavily armed drug cartel enforcers have taken place in broad daylight in towns near the U.S. border, as well as in some of Mexico's biggest cities. At the heart of the problem is the fact that Mexico is a failed state in which there is so much narco-trafficking that the profits, estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars, have been used to buy the loyalty of cops, politicians, members of the military and even senior figures in drug enforcement.
Drug cartels have even carried out high-level assassinations and released gruesome videos of victims being tortured and killed as a message to politicians and judges not to interfere with their operations. Fear of the cartels is so pervasive that it is impossible to persuade average citizens to give evidence in trials in which narco-gunmen have been charges with barbarous crimes.
Between 2001 and 2006, Mexican President /Vicente Fox did little to limit the power of the cartels. He was a close friend of President Bush, but neither of them had an appetite for confronting the emerging power of the drug lords. As a consequence, Congress followed tradition and threw billions of dollars at an issue it defined vaguely as the "war on drugs." It was a policy the Obama White House now appears to have adopted, mirroring directly the policies of the Clinton era when a large slice of congressional anti-drug funding ended up in Columbia.
In 2006, Fox was succeeded by Felipe Calderon, who decided to reverse his predecessor's policies and go head to head with the cartels. He immediately deployed 36,000 troops to work with the federal police, but some observers have since argued that he merely put the army in the frontline to be bribed.
Law enforcement in Mexico is mired in corruption. Across Mexico there are approximately 1,600 different police forces, most of them controlled by state and municipal authorities, making the eradication of bribes and other scandals that much more difficult. There was also the threat posed by an estimated 100,000 Mexican military deserters, some of whom had joined up with the drug cartels in search of higher wages.
Washington's answer has always been to throe even more taxpayers' monkey at the problem. While much of that has been used to buy helicopters and other technology for fighting drug traffickers, a significant percentage of the money allocated to Mexico is still being used to line the pockets of Mexican authorities.
The growing violence remains a problem for Obama administration. In the past two years, Mexican cartels have actually moved some of their operations across the border into American towns and cities and are spreading their wings into countries like Guatemala. In Arizona alone, there have been hundreds of kidnappings for ransom, and there is now clear evidence of cartel activity in cities like Chicago.
If Washington wants to protect America, they cannot limit
their focus to airlines and ports. They need to look carefully
at the dangers posed by a failed state at our back door and a
porous border. A good place to start would be to bring home the
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops currently protecting the
borders of foreign countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and station
them between the U.S. and Mexico.
|Top|