January 1&8, 2007
The Iran Conference (on the Holocaust)
January 15, 2007
January 22, 2007
January 29, 2007
A border fence is already being built—but not by an order of Congress. Instead, it's being built in Naco, Ariz., by private citizens, many of whom strongly believe that Congress will not approve proposed legislation to erect a 700-mile border fence.
The citizens braving the heat of the Arizona desert to secure their part of the U.S. border are working under the banner of the Minuteman Border Fence, a project of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, or MCDC. The corps' national executive director, Al Garza, was interviewed by AFP on Dec. 18, during which he described the project and the philosophy behind it.
Part of that philosophy is expressed with the words "Security Can't Wait for Congress to Act," used on the web site of the MCDC/Minuteman Border Fence at www.temanhq.com A quarter mile of fence already stands, 12 to 14 feet high, built at Naco, across the border from Naco, Mexico. As explained by Garza, a retired private investigator, the metal fence is located in a notoriously hazardous area due to a high influx of illegal aliens.
Some illegal aliens are "assisted" by human "coyotes" who have established their own racket to profit from aliens' treks into the United States. "It's very bad here," Garza told AFP. "It's one of the main treks they use, with drug smuggling and human smuggling going through. They are very bold . . . and aggressive."
Accordingly, the Naco fence, consisting of a tight mesh that cannot be climbed, with poles driven deeply into the ground, is exceedingly tough.
"It's very carefully engineered, designed and well-constructed. You cannot cut it, melt it or drive through it," said Garza, who pointed out that a U.S. company, Fomguard, donated no less than $7.5 million worth of materials for the fence.
"[Fomguard] knows we are not the vigilantes we are portrayed as, that we are not lawbreakers," said Garza. "We're just demanding that our laws be enforced."
The cost of erecting the fence, counting labor and materials, is $150 per linear foot. Garza didn't do the math, but he roughly estimated that the already-donated materials may stretch for several miles, perhaps five or more.
It may be a "stretch" to say that this privately built fence will soon reach for several hundred miles like the congressional fence proposal. However, Garza indicated that wasting time is not an option. America is besieged by those crossing the porous southern border on the one hand, and, as he sees it, Congress is refusing to do its job on the other hand. This comes in an age when U.S. Border Patrol agents are apprehended and arrested for doing their job, Garza said, instead of receiving the funding, tools and encouragement they need to protect the United States from possible terrorist threats and other hazards that stem from the illegal alien racket.
"We're a sovereign country," Garza said. He added that the job of his Minuteman group and related groups is simply to scout the terrain for possible alien border crossings, spot the crossings when they happen and report the illegal activity to the proper authorities. Minuteman members neither arrest nor detain illegal aliens.
"We're pride ourselves on the rule of law. And the rule of law applies to aliens, not just American citizens," Garza said.
However, this is not to say that those in the MCDC and other likeminded people don't feel compassion for the many desperate aliens who flee Mexico. "We have saved over 400 lives [of illegals] in the last three-and-a-half years," Garza told AFP, pointing out that many who leave Mexico on foot are found in the desert extremely thirsty, hungry and ill.
"We don't blame them," Garza said, of illegal aliens. American and Mexican policy makers seem to be the main problem, he indicated. Garza, a former south Texas resident, is Hispanic himself and knows the Hispanic culture well. Even though he understands from firsthand experience that some people in that culture want to exploit America and are in favor of illegal immigration, he also knows that people like Hispanic activist Claudia Spencer and other Hispanics of her mindset love America, want the best for it and want sensible laws enforced consistently and properly.
Garza and several other likeminded citizens have trouble believing that members of Congress are serious about building a border fence. If they pass a bill to do so, the bill "will be tied to amnesty and the fence might never be built," Garza said.
He fears a repeat of 1986, when major immigration reform was passed during the Reagan administration.
"Amnesty went on the upswing and measures for stricter border controls went down," Garza said. "My contention is that the bill for a border fence is a dog and pony show."
The Minuteman Project, led by outspoken, high-profile activist Jim Gilchrist, started around the same time the MCDC was launched. The president and founder of the MCDC is Chris Simcox. Garza said that Gilchrist's group lately has focused more on lobbying Congress on immigration matters. Meanwhile, the MCDC started the Naco fence and is monitoring the interior of the nation, keeping tabs on the many towns that have passed, or are considering passing, local laws to crack down on those who rent housing and provide jobs to illegal aliens and break immigration laws by so doing.
From Hazelton, Penn., to Escondido, Calif., and many places in between, U.S. cities and towns are trying to send Congress the message that if the U.S. government will not get its priorities straight in these jittery post-911 days, then local citizens and leaders will act.
Those in the MCDC, who have launched more borderobservation operations south of McAllen, Tex., and in a number of other locations by the Mexican border, are another illustration of U.S. citizens proving that they are willing and able to defend America.
The underlying theme seems to be that, when push comes to shove, vigilant Americans will do the job Congress and the president won't.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
With both the Senate and the House sharply tilted to the left under Democratic control, Americans should be wary of new efforts to curb Second Amendment rights when elected officials take their seats in January. Most anti-gun legislation will probably originate in the senate, where some of the nation's most rabid gun-grabbers are now in positions of power.
The new Senate Majority Leader "Slippery Harry" Reid (D-Nev.) Is well-known for his anti-gun views. Sen Richard Durbin (D-Ill), the new Senate deputy majority leader, is equally reputed to be one of the most venomous gun foes.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) Is once again now a major force in pushing restrictive gun laws.
Schumer is joined by fellow New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is planning a run for president. The former first lady, like her husband Bill Clinton, is a committed enemy of American gun owners and can be expected to make attacks on Second amendment rights a major factor for wooing left-wing Democrat voters. Sen. Clinton, who is now trying to cast herself as a mom figure to the country, will undoubtedly appeal to American mothers about the dangers of guns in the hands of children.
Democratic Sens. Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California can also be expected to be among the strong anti-gun faction.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is on their team.
Gun owners lost one of their best friends with the defeat of Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) Who was pushing legislation to make a state-enacted right to carry concealed weapon permits valid in all states. Now that bill is a loser.
Although Allen's successor, Sen. Jim Webb (D), seems committed to gon-owner rights, he had already expressed his reservations about another proposed bill to allow citizens to carry guns in national parks.
Fortunately, many of the new Democratic House members are pro-Second Amendment and were elected primarily on their opposition to the war in Iraq, not as gun grabbers. In addition, Democrats are wary of alienation young white males in the country, who cherish gun rights and were willing to cast their votes against gun grabbers like a. Gore.
Democrats hold only a one-seat majority in the Senate, which can change quickly with the death of one of several of their aging members, who could be replaced with a Republican by a Republican governor.
President Bush, going back to his days as governor of Texas,
has been pro-Second Amendment. However, bush is a wheeler-dealer
politician and he might sign an anti-gun amendment tacked onto
some other legislation, such as a budget bill or one concerned
with Homeland Security.
|Top|
In late December, I wrote about the critical need for congress to reassert its authority overn foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be make by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our Founding Fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none.
Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed, and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second Amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rational is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles inshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon or Palestine.
It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American
lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle
East in our image.
|Top|
Take this for what it's worth: what you may have heard on television or radio or read in your daily newspaper about the now-infamous international conference on the Holocaust in Iran is largely untrue, or, at the very least, seriously distorted and very much misrepresented.
In some respects, the conference was largely painted as a rally of anti-Semites, white racists, and Muslim extremists, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead, the conference - which included some 67 invited researchers from 30 different countries - was a diverse and eclectic gathering which not only featured a group of anti Zionist Orthodox Jewish rabbis but also included Black speakers from the African continent, as well as Palestinian Muslim attendees and European academics who insisted that the Holocaust, as it is popularly remembered, did happen, that it was a major tragedy in which many millions of Jews were deliberately exterminated.
Thus, the false image presented by the media - that the conference was some sort of "hatefest," dedicated entirely to the proposition of what has been called "Holocaust denial" - is anything but the truth.
Thus, if anything, the tone of the conference itself was one of genuine oen debate and freedom of expression, perhaps the first time ever in modern history that an international gathering actually addressed literally "all" sides of the controversy surrounding the events referred to as "the Holocaust."
So the truth is that there were many very different points of view being expressed at the conference, and they were hardly in agreement on any particular issue except for one possible general area of convergence: the concept that the Holocaust has been used as a political tool to steal 8,019 square miles of Palestine for the Zionist scheme to eventually take over the entire Mideast.
In addition, however, there were many speakers - including voices from the Arab and Muslim world - who put forth the notion that it is the United States and Britain, as imperial powers, that are more so to blame for the dislocation of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims of the Middle East - rather than Israel itself.
Israel, these speakers said - and these were many reflecting this point of view - was not the problem, per se, but rather the guilty parties responsible for the ongoing crisis in Palestine are the imperial American and British powers that brought Israel into being as an outpost for their geopolitical designs in the region.
Many took the position that the basic story of the Holocaust, as it has been told in the media, was essentially what happened, but that whatever happened - to whatever degree - did not justify Israels ongoing treatment of the Palestinian people.
One speaker in particular broke the basic mold of the conference. That was Lady Michele Renouf of Britain. Acknowledging the potentially inflammatory nature of her remarks, Lady Renouf suggested that the root of the modern day conflicts between Jewish people and the people of Palestine has more historic antecedents, going back through the centuries.
Lady Renouf asserted that the often hateful (and indeed racist) attitudes toward non-Jews expressed in the Jewish religious reflections on the collective works known as the Talmud were the root of much opposition to Jewish people in the nations of the West. This in itself, she said, could be partial explanation for the foundational concerns of so many Europeans who supported measures taken by the National Socialist regime of Adolf Hitler to curtail the influence of the Jews of Europe before and during world War II.
Although the Western media relished pointing out that controversial American author, David Duke, who has been teaching political science in recent years at a prestigious private university in Kiev, Ukraine, was among the speakers - always harkening back to the already well-known fact that 30 years ago Duke was involved in the Ku Kiux Klan - Duke was no more "featured" as a speaker than any of the wide-ranging number of speakers from around the globe, people of all races, creeds and colors.
And for the record, it should be noted, as the accompanying article points out, the mass media actually distorted what the articulate Duke really did say, literally putting words (and propositions) in his mouth that Duke never uttered once during his remarks to the conference.
Duke's primary emphasis was not focused on the truth - or the lies - about the Holocaust, rather instead on the need for all nations to recognize and support freedom of speech and thought, no matter what the issue, no matter what special interest group might have the intention of dictating what can or can not be discussed about a particular subject.
So again, the mass media once again entirely off the mark of reality. It was, instead a mass of lies. And it is to Duke's credit that he took advantage of the mass media's focus on his attendance at the conference to correct the record for those who care to know the truth.
WHAT THE CONFERENCE ACCOMPLISHED
In the end, given the many differences of opinion among those who lectured and attended the conference, what was probably the most profound result (and perhaps the original aim itself) of this momentous gathering was the very fact that this conference directly challenged perhaps the most hallowed icon of modern history, the Holocaust, and made clear and enunciated in no uncertain terms the basic prinicple that there can be no restrictions (by any single nation or ethnic group) on the discussion of historical events as those who have controlled the discussion of the Holocaust insist there must be.
That the conference was actually sponsored by the Institute for Political and International Studies, a division of the foreign ministry of the Islamic Republic if Iran, was momentous indeed: this was the first time that any government since World War II dared to acknowledge the fact that there are serious questions being raised about the specifics of the Holocaust.
But the truth is that, since the end of world War II, there have been countless (and often unsung) historians and researchers who have diligently devoted their resources (often at risk to life and limb) to ferreting out the truth. Those relentless truth-seekers have been subjected to an unending campaign of hatred by the mass media, but with the advent of this conference the international media - as a whole - was forced to acknowledge their work, however grudgingly it may have been.
Great credit must be given to Dr. Fredrick Toben, often called the "international ambassador" of the Holocaust revisionist movement, for his singularly instrumental role in helping the Iranian sponsors of the conference bring the gathering to fruition.
Although Willis A. Carto, the publisher of the world's most-widely-circulated revisionist magazine, The Barnes Review - 6,500 subscribers strong - did not attend the conference, he took greeat satisfaction in seeing the Iran conference materialize as it did. When this reporter, who is on the editorial board of The Barnes Review, took the podium at the Iran conference, I extended Carto's best wishes to the conference.
Beyond dispute the pioneer publicist of Holocaust revisionism,
responsible for the publication of hundreds of books and research
papers on the topic, many of which have been translated into multiple
foreign languages, thereby laying the groundwork for a burgeoning
global Holocaust revisionist movement, Carto told AFP. "The
Holocaust giant has feet of clay. The myth can only be sustained
by suppressing the truth - or at least unfettered access to the
facts. What will they do now - lock up the world? Too late! Their
giant is crumbling."
|Top|
Mass media reports in the West (in the United States in particular)
often focused largely on the fact that one of the vast array of
speakers at the 
Holocaust conference
in Tehran was David Duke. Although the media repeated ad nauseam
to the point of boredom, the well-known fact that in his younger
days, Duke was the leader of a Ku Klux Klan group, the media failed
to point out that Duke left the Klan some 30 years ago and that
many of Duke's fellow speakers in Iran were people of color from
Africa and Asia and throughout the Middle East. The Iran conference
was hardly the so-called "white supremacist" or "racist"
conclave that the American media falsely protrayed.
Nor did the media bother to mention regarding Duke that he served as a popularly elected Republican state representative from a suburban district in Louisiana and that he ran two widely publicized campaigns for governor and United states senator (winning roughly 65-70% of the European-American vote statewide both times). Nor did the media bother to mention that Duke is a certified academic, holding a Ph.D. from a prestigious private university, and that he has taught political science courses at the university level.
Highly articulate and telegenic and a longtime and open critic of imbalanced U.S. policies in support of Israel, Duke has never particularly focused on what might be called "the Holocaust issue." However, Duke is certainly familiar with the controversy and has often spoken critically of laws in European countiries - where Duke spends much of his time researcching and writing and lecturing - that impose prison sentences on those who dare to question details surrounding the subject of "the Holocaust." And that's what Duke focused on when he spoke in Iran.
Nonetheless, the Western media reports about Duke's speech completely misrepresented not only the whole tone of the Holocaust conference in Tehran but the actual words spoken former Louisiana congressman himself.
AFP's Michael collins Piper was on hand in Iran with Duke at the time Duke fired off this corrective message (posted on Duke's website at www.david-duke.com ) that exposed how very much the mass media was lying about the conference. In Piper's estimation, having been on hand for the conference himself, Duke's assessment is probably as succinct and as accurate as anything that has been or can be said about the conference and the way the media distorted the truth.
Duke pulls no punches. If you are politically correct and are sensitive to no nonsense language regarding the media, please read no further. However, if you are interested in truth, here's what Duke said about the media's misinformation.
It is being reported around the world that in my speech in Tehran that I stated that the "gas chambers did not exist." I said no such thing! In fact I said specifically that I take no position on that issue but that I believe in freedom of speech and find it an outrage that men such as historian David Irving are in prison for simply voicing an intellectual historical opinion.
The Zionist-influenced media has maintained that the purpose of the conference was to deny the Holocaust - when the actual, stated purpose was to provide free speech on this important historical issue and to protest against the suppression of free speech in some European and North American countries. The record of the conference is clear. There were many speeches at the conference that maintained the mainstream Holocaust view.
In an act of blatant deception, the Zionist-influenced media has headlined that in the closing session Iran's President called for "wiping Israel of the map," suggesting that he advocated a genocide or destruction of the people of Israel. One more big lie.
Any tape or transcript of his speech will show that he said support around the world for Zionism is dwindling and that the Zionist Regime will be replaced by a democratic state in the same fashion that the Soviet Regime was dissolved in Russia.
He specifically advocated complete civil and political rights for all residents of the region, and specifically mentioned protection for the complete civil rights for Jews and Palestinians alike, and he repeatedly stressed that all peoples should love and respect one another and must disavow violence and war.
How the Zionist media lies! Thank God we have an Internet where people can immediately learn the truth. Ten years ago these lies could be stated with no fear of contradiction, now you can hear with your own ears the truth rather than the lies of a pro-Israel media. The truth the Zionist are trying to create a catastrophic, murderous war with Iran so they are trying to stoke the fires of misunderstanding and hatred toward that country.
Any fair-minded person who reads my actual words and the words of the academics at the conference and the words of the Iranian President can see for themselves that the media has made up colossal lies about this conference and its participants.
Tony Blair and George Bush have called the Holocaust Conference "disgraceful." Why is it disgraceful to allow freedom of speech on historical issues? Isn't the real disgrace that thousands of Europeans have been imprisoned for simply questioning small details of the historical period called the "Holocaust"?
Why is a conference dedicated to free speech condemned, yet putting people in prison in Europe for exercising free speech is praised?
Who are the real deniers of freedom? Aren't they the ionist
puppets Bush and Blair and the Zionist controlled media that lie
about this conference, my speech, the speech of the Iranian President
and those who support imprisonment of human beings for free speech?
|Top|
Although in the wake of the Holocaust conference there came the good news that an appeals judge ordered best-selling British historian David Irving freed from imprisonment in Austria, after serving a 13 month term for the "crime" of Holocaust denial - despite the Austrian government's demand that Irving serve a full ten year sentence - there was also some bad mews for Holocaust revisionists.
Proving precisely the point that those who dare to engage in genuine debate about the events and circumstances surrounding the Holocaust are subject to harassment, boycott and intimidation, news reports indicate that at least four individuals who attended the conference in Iran have now come under serious fire, at least one of them facing possible criminal prosecution.
ITEM: In Manchester, England a screaming mob attacked the home of Rabbi Ahron Cohen, one of the spokesmen for the anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish group, Neturei Karta, which was prominently publicized in the mass media for its participation in the conference. The rabbi is being loudly and formally shunned by the Jewish community in which he lives and Jewish leaders have vowed to deny him a Jewish burial. Eggs were pelted on his home.
The irony of the abuse to which Rabbi Cohen has been subjected is that Cohen himself strenuously insisted - in absolute opposition to the views of many of the Revisionists at the conference - than many millions of Jews died during the Holocaust, noting that many of his own family disappeared during World War II.
ITEM: In France, President Jacques Chirac has ordered an official "investigation" into the remarks made by Professor Robert Faurisson during his appearance at theconference in Iran. French Justice Minister Pascal Clement will now determine whether Faurisson's statements (made on Iranian soil) can be prosecuted under a 1990 French law that makes questioning details of the Holocaust a crime. According to an enthusiastic Associated Press report hailing the attack on Faurisson, the French wll contend that if Faurisson's statements were published on the Internet or in a newspaper distributed in France that Faurisson will thus be liable for what he said in Iran and that some other news source distributed. That's the essence of "freedom of speech" and "liberty" in one of the "great democracies of the West."
ITEM: In Canada, at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, political science professor Shiraz Dossa is under fire for speaking at the Holocaust conference even though Dossa himself is a Holocaust believer and even said that the conference" was unfortunately stained by the presence of a small number of Holocaust deniers." Dossa spoke on the issue of how the Holocaust - which he accepts as being precisely what it is described in standard Western history texta - has been manipulated in the war on terror. Dossa has been called on the carpet by university authorities, been subjected to media defamation, been the target of angry letters from other academics and the question of his continuing tenure at the university has been raised.
ITEM: In Stockholm, Sweden, Jan Bernhoff, who spoke at the Holocaust conference in Tehran, was suspended from his job as a computer science teacher at an adult education college because of the fact that he lectured in Tehran. Although his job as a computer teacher has nothign whatsoever to do with history or the Holocaust, the action against him was taken. Currently, according to press reports, a "probe" of Bernhoff by the school is now under way. The Primary complaint against Bernhoff's lecture seems to be the fact that he said that, based upon his research and that of others, the allegation that 6,000,000 Jews died during World War II cannot be backed up by factual data and that the figure is considerably less than that. Even arguing with the figure of "Six Million" is thus considered "Holocaust denial" and even young Bernhoff's attendance at the conference was "unacceptable," as the Swedish cabinet's Minister for Schools. Jan Bjorkland, self-righteously declared.
What further fall-out from the Iran conference there will occur
remains to be seen but the bottom line is that the ongoing war
against freedom of expression in regard to this issue is far from
over. But Holocaust revisionism, by virtue of its stand in favor
of intellectual freedom, continues to stand on the side of the
angels, its brutal and vicious enemies notwithstanding.
|Top|
Pictured is British historian David Irving leaving a court in Vienna just before Christmas after being in prison for 13 months for violating Austria's law on Holocaust study. He is to serve the remainder of his three year sentence on probation. What follow is the text of a letter received by AFP consultant Willis A. Carto from Irving just a week before his release:
"I've been here inAustria's oldest jail for a year - arrested at gunpoint by eight police officers for an opinion I expressed 17 years ago; but rumors that I have suffered a stroke are untrue, planted I suspect on the Internet by the usual people. The rumors caused a lot of worry for my family, but the truth is I am fit and bhetter looked after here in jail than I wold be in London - and safer.
"Already I have written 4,000 pages of memoirs, and a manuscript on Heinrich Himmler, so, tho' my wife and little girl in the U.K. are suffering great hardship, the time is not lost.
"I have received 2,000 letters of support. Only two letters have been hostile. The prison officials privately treat me like a V.I.P. but we need financial aid to see this nerve-straining battle for real History through.
"As for being dead already. I've got bad news for the
enemy. Togesagte leben lang, the Germans say - those pronounced
dead permaturely live long."
|Top|
Prominently on display at the international conference on the Holocaust were a number of video documentaries by an American filmmaker whose productions provide - for the first time ever - a fascinating look at little-known facts ((and a deconstruction of the myths) about the Holocaust and the problems of the Middle East stemming from the establishment of the state of Israel which the media often tells us "rose from the ashes of the Holocaust.
Although you've never heard of him, unlike the names of the big Hollywood filmmakers, Mark Farrel is one of the most talented young filmmakers today. And you can bet your live savings that none of Farrell's documentaries will ever be nominated for an Academy Award, unlike the many Holocaust documentaries by Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center which are always up for the Oscar - and win.
The reason, of course, is simple: Farrell's films which have not received the distribution they deserve - address some of the most controversial topics on the face of the planet today.
Although farrell has no billionaire families promoting him, he has utilized his considerable talents to produce a variety of DVD documentaries that are "must" viewing for those interested in historical revelations that can't be found on any other videos.
Farrell's videos on the explosive topic of "the Holocaust" and the questions raised about that subject, much to the dismay of those who want to maintain a monopoly on what can - and cannot - be said about it should be noted first:
• The Persecution of Revisionists: The Holocaust Unveiled.
Although there has been a lot in the news about the jailing of
top-notch revisionist historians (which Farrel examines in overview),
this video is particularly powerful in that it contains actual
film footage taken inside World War II concentration camps that
has-been suppressed by the mass media which prefers to present
views of stacks of dead bodies (most of which were filmed in two
camps on German soil where even professional "Nazi-hunters"
admit no gas chambers were ever used to kill anybody).
• Judea Declares War: A Critical Look at World War II. While
many have heard the official" rendition of the causes of
the conflagration that ripped the world apart, this video presents
a refreshing look at "the other side of the coin." If
Farrell presented this video in Germany today, he'd been sent
to prison.
Farrell has also produced a number of other DVDs that are candid,
high-quality presentations on "taboo" subjects related
to the Middle East controversy.
• Understanding Anti-Semitism. A forthright look at a 3,000
year-old phenomenon tht is much-discussed but selfom analyzed,
explaining the reasons behind the growing discontent with the
power of organized Zionist groups in America and around the world;
• Rep. Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out. A fascinating interview
with the longtime congressman driven out of office by the Israeli
lobby for daring to criticize U.S. support for Israel. Here's
Findley's first-hand account;
• Zionist war Crimes: The Case for the Prosecution. Here's
the historic record - going back to even before the founding of
Israel - regarding Zionist terrorism, featuring rare fim footage
from the Middle East, exposing Israeli "statesmen" as
ruthless terrorist butchers.
This is just a brief look at some of the videos Farrell has undertaken. His commentary is candid - no-holds barred. If you are "politically correct," you may find it tough to absorb. But if you're not afraid of difficult subjects and want to convey to others another side of history, these videos are just what you need.
In these videos, there's no shrieking or grandstanding or "hard sell" as all-too-frequently found in some video presentations by some "celebrities" in the alternative media today. You won't be embarrassed to show Farrell's videos to friends who are "on the fence" and who may need a subtle push to come around to your point of view.
But Farrell is no shrinking violet. He makes his position clear and presents in a factual, restrained way, supplemented with an amazing variety of illustrations, film footage and other material brought to the screen is such an effective way.
The videos are fast-moving, eye-catching and certainly unrivaled by any other videos that have addressed these topics. And, it should be noted, it is hard to even name any other videos of this kind whatsoever.
And that's what makes Farrell's work so powerful and much needed. Never before has a videographer challenged, head challenged, head on, so many "treasured" historical lies and factual aberrations as Farrell has done so skillfully.
With these videos Farrel has established himself as "the" unrivaled video historian in the realm of bringing history into accord with the facts in the tradition of the late dr. Harry Elmer Barnes and his modern-day hiers such as David Irving, Gemar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel and untold thousands who are now (or who have been) consigned to prison for daring to question so-called "established" facts that are really no more than tired-and-worn repetitions of wartime propaganda and disinformation posing as historical truth.
These videos are available at $22 postpaid by writing: Mark
Farrell, P.O. Box 141243, Dept. AFP1, Cincinnati, OK 45250-1243.
Or go online to Farrel's website at www.honestmediatoday.com for
further information as well as a wealth of additional commentary
and information.
|Top|
The most important thing that I can convey about Iran in general - my most memorable reaction in retrospect -- is this simple concept: Americans need to ignore anything and everything they hear about modern-day Iran, its leader, its culture, and its people from the mass media in America.
It wasn't until I actually arrived in Tehran and spent a day or so there that it became so apparent to me that even I - who fancied myself as being reasonably well informed about that country - had come to Iran with a lot of misconceptiions (prejudices, that is) that were imposed on me (and yes, it's a type of brainwashing) by the major media in America: everything from the nightly "news" broadcasts to the feature stories and other information (largely propaganda, both subtle and not-so-subtle) in the major news magazines.
As our plane prepared to land in Tehran, a message across the loudspeaker was rather jarring. It said that "by government decree" all women were required to cover their heads upon arrival in Iran. I knew this was the case, but to actually hear it broadcast over the airplane's public address system was, even for me, somewhat un-nerving. The mass media's image of oppressed women, being beaten and abused and forced to cover themselves from head to toe in dark, mysterious-looking garb, immediately came to mind. But I looked about the plane, at the array of women - Iranian and otherwise, dark-skinned, lightt-skinned, blonde and brunette, Eastern and Western, you name it - and I didn't see a single one of those ladies flinch. Not even the richest looking women aboard, Iranian ladies in elegant clothes and dripping in expensive jewelry, seemed to be fazed in the least.
And it was then, as I surveyed the people aboard that plane going to Tehran (from Frankfurt, Germany, my connection point from Washington, DC), I realized in my own mind, for the first time, that these were people who might soon be dead: innocent victims of a reign of fire from the sky (a very real Holocaust) either from American bombers or Israeli bombers or both. These Iranian people, living their lives, traveling freely back and forth from their country to others, are in the gunsights of America's George Bush and his Zionist allies in Washington and Tel Aviv.
Those Iranians are among the people whom 1,000 American Jewish rabbis - representing, by their sheer numbers, an overwhelming proportion of the synagogue-going American Jewish community - recently petitioned President Bush to attack, using American military resources (and risking the precious lives of American men and women) to do it. "If those rabbis, supposedly ‘men of God,' want to wage war against these Iranians," I thought, "then let them do it. But they had better srop pestering Americans to fight another needless war for Israel." The realization that these living, breathing human beings from all walks of life - these Iranians - were the targets of the wrath of those war-crazed rabbis stayed with me throughout my entire time in Iran, a great burden for me as an American, knowing that the president of the United States is more in line with the thinking of those 1,000 war-mongering "religious" leaders than he is with the vast numbers of peace-loving Americans.
Although I was in Iran - and only in the capital city of Tehran - for some five days (arriving early Sunday morning and departing early Thursday morning) and spent mot os the time at my hotel and at the meeting hall for the Holocaust conference (both of which were in the northern part of that expansive, sprawling city of 14 million people), I did get the opportunity to see much of Tehran, as did the other foreign speakers and attendees at the conference.
At the close of the conference on Tuesday evening, we were shuttled to a government center in central Tehran where we were formally greeted en masse by President Ahmadinejad, who later graciously posed for photographs and signed autographs and spoke (through translators) with the attendees who enthusiastically surrounded him to personally thank him for having dared to face global media assault for his comments about the Holocaust and (even more so) for having convened that controversial gathering.
Reaching Out. President Ahmadinejad says all peoples of the world must respect one another to co-exist peacefully. Here he greets on of the rabbis from Neturei Karta USA. Rabbi Weiss of the same group spoke at the AFP Conference. The group's presence underscored one of the themes of the conference, namely, that all the people of the world can live together harmoniously. Iran also invited many "pro-Holocaust" scholars to tell their side as well. contrary to what you heard on the mainstream news, the conference was a testament to freedom of speech, the very thing we are supposed to be bringing to the people of the Mideast. What did most Western governments do? They condemned it. |
Later, that evening, we were taken to a banquet at the modern and functional headquarters of the Iraqi foreign ministry, high atop the city on the mountainside with a magnificent overlook of Tehran. There we had the opportunity to meet and speak personally with Iraqi foreign minister Manovchghr Mottaki who hosted the dinner and there pledged continuing support for foreign political dissidents who dared to continue to speak out on the issue of the Holocaust and regarding the global influence of Zionist power bloc. And believe it or not, right there on the grounds of the foreign ministry of the Islamic republic of Iran was a lighted Christmas tree. Yes, folks, Jesus Christ is revered by the Muslim people, and his birth is celebrated and honored in the capital on one of the world's most dedicated Muslim nations. This is a point that will confuse and fluster Muslim-bashing pro-Israel Christian fundamentalists in light of their steadfast devotion to a foreign entity (Israel) that would never, under any circumstances, raise a Christmas tree and, in fact, does all it can to suppress celebrations of Christ by Christians (and Muslims) in Palestine. So there it was: a Christmas tree in Islamic Iran. So shuttling back and forth across Tehran, we got to see the city (and its people) live, in action, so to speak. And what a busy place it is, certainly the busiest city that I've ever seen (and I've been to new York, Moscow, Tokyo and Kuala Lumput, very busy big cities all). In general, in my personal estimation, the Iranians I met - ranging from waiters and hotel workers to diplomats and scholars - are good natured, wry in their wit, very friendly and hardly "anti-American," except perhaps for a naturally developing antipathy to George W. Bush and that small clique of his handlers and coconspirators who want to kill the Iranian people destroy their government, cripple their nuclear energy program, and turn their historic nation - the very land of Daniel of the Bible - into a cauldron of death and disaster as they have already done to Iraq, once a thriving republic. Tehran is bustling, energetic, hardly the image that one would expect from the media coverage that the Western press conveys to its gullible audiences. There is no overhanging sense of gloom in Tehran, no specter of oppression, no feeling that secret police and observation cameras are close by, monitoring one's every move. People live their lives, going to and from work, just as they do anywhere else. Now of course, the saloons have been shut down and certain forms of dress and decorum are expected of visitors and natives alike, but traveling through Tehran one doesn't feel any different than one might feel in any other major city. There is one notable and striking exception to this: the fact that the traffic in Tehran is enormously overwhelming and the pedestrian and the drivers seem to have overcome the conflict and have forged a bizarre (if cooperative) way of dealing with the mess. |
Through Telebzadeh I also had the chance to meet the talented Muslim actor who lovingly portrayed Jesus Christ in Talebzadeh's soon-to-be-released major motion picture on the last days of Christ on earth (financed by the Iranian ministry of culture) that - by the estimation of critics who have seen advance screenings - rival even Mel Gibson's epic Passion off the Christ.
Just a few thoughts and impressions about one of the most misrepresented
nations on Earth today. Much more could be said, but this gives
a brief overview of some things that need to be said and understood.
|Top|
Among the many speakers at the Holocaust conference in Iran was Malaysian diplomat and attorney, Matthias Chang, best known to readers of AFP as the author of Future Fast Forward and Brainwashed for War. In his prepared text, entitled "The Zionist' Insidious benchmark for War Atrocities," Chang expressed the view of many people around the world that it's time to end the Zionist monopoly on suffering. What follows are excerpts from Chang's remarks:
"Why talk about death and the horrors of a war that happened sixty years ago, when right at this moment, wanton destruction and massacres of the innocents are taking place in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and in many parts of Africa? Why indeed!
"It has been said that the first casualty of war is truth. As such we must be especially careful when reviewing history written by the victors and losers in war. We must not partake in the perpetuation of lies and propaganda that serve vested interests.
"The killings of the Jews cannot and must not be distinguished from the war crimes committed by all war criminals against all the victims of the Second World War. The German citizens who were incinerated by fire-bombs and the Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were vaporized by nuclear bombs are as much victims as the Jews. They were all victims of WWII. Those who continue to promote the political line that the Holocaust is a unique and an exceptional Jewish historical event, when compared to the sufferings of theother victims, such as the Chinese who were slaughtered in excess of 10 million, have to that extent minimized the atrocities committed by both sides in WWII. It is an attempt to white-wash the war crimes of the victors in WWII.
"The Holocaust is now being used as a benchmark by which all other atrocities are judged, such that when the full horror of the devastation in Iraq was exposed, the international media contemptuously dismissed the war crimes committed against the Iraqi people as the price of establishing democracy. The same goes for the Palestinians.
"No one race or community should be allowed to arrogate to itself and or demand exclusive memorials to their sufferings. The right to sruvive cannot be monopolized by one race or community. To accept that the Holocaust was an exceptional Jewish historical event is to deny the genocides, massacres and sufferings inflicted on the rest of mankind throughout history. This cannot be right.
I cannot help but question the motives of those who seek to elevate the sufferings of the Jewish people above those who had suffered as much, if not more from the horrors of WWII. And when the sufferings of the Jewish people have turned into an industry we owe a moral duty to the departed to ensure that no one should profit from blood money, more so when lies are perpetrated to further such profiteering.
"If we are gathered here to seek truth and to condemn war crimes, then we must condemn all war crimes, not just those allegedly committed by the defeated in WWII. If we judge Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo as war criminals, then we cannot but find Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin guilty as well.
"We must set up an International Commission of Jurists to review the findings of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal.
"We must set up a War Crimes Tribunal to adjudicate on the crimesof all Allied Powers leaders during WWII.
"We must set up a War Crimes Tribunal to adjudicate on
the war crimes of all Zionist leaders, specifically the past and
present leaders of the state of Israel.
|Top|
On the Islamic holy day of Eid, the world watched in horror at the barbaric lynching of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, allegedly for crimes against humanity. This public murder was sanctioned by the War Criminals, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.
This sadistic act broadcasted to the whole world was a travesty of justice, and was meant to demonstrate the imperial power of the United States and serves as a warning to peace loving peoples that we must either bow to the dictates of the Bush regime or face the consequences of a public lynching.
The lynching was also an insult to all Muslims, as it occurred
on the Holy Day of Eid, whereby Muslims devote themselves to 
prayer and forgiveness. It is all
too clear that the war criminal Bush has no sensitivities whatsoever
for Muslims on their pilgrimage to Mecca. This barbaric act is
a sacrilege!
The entire trial process was a mockery of justice, no less a Kangaroo Court. Defense counsels were brutally murdered, witnesses threatened and judges removed for being impartial and replaced by puppet judges. Yet, we are told that Iraq was invaded to promote democracy, freedom and justice.
A peaceful country has now been turned into a war zone. Over 500,000 children died as a result of the criminal economic sanctions, and the latest findings by the medical journal Lancet reveals that over 650,000 Iraqis have died since the illegal invasion of 2003.
The War Criminal Bush has killed more Iraqis than President Saddam ever did, if in fact he was guilty of any crime. If President Saddam Hussein was guilty of war crimes, then the world must find Bush and Blair equally guilty and the International Criminal Court cannot but prosecute these war criminals.
The inaction thus far by the International Criminal Court against Bush and Blair exposes the double standard of the said Court, when it does not hesitate to prosecute war crimes committed in Darfur, Rwanda and Kosovo.
If we support human rights and justice, we must condemn this barbaric lynching of President Saddam Hussein. There can be no excuse whatsoever for this injustice under any circumstances. War Criminal Bush and the puppet regime in Iraq have made a mockery of the Rule of Law.
—TUN DR. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD, for the International Committee for the Defense of President Saddam Hussein
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
American Free Press has confirmed that the huge Chinese shipping conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. Has a significant presence at the Lazaro Cardenas seaport in Mexico, as well as other Mexican ports. The company has had effective control of both ends of the Panama canal for the Last seven years. The Mexican ports link to the budding Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) toll road network by way of railroad cargo lines that head from the ports across Mexico to the United States border, providing a conduit to bypass U.S. West Coast seaports and haul ever-more massive quantities of imports into the United states.
The TTC is part of a planned vast network of tollways that, unless derailed by a growing number of concerned citizens, will ripple through many parts of the United States, functioning as a delivery network for goods flooding into the United States from foreign factories although it appears U.S.-made goods would be exported via the same system.
Hutchison Whampoa's Pacific Port at Lazaro Cardenas, located in the Mexican state of Michoacan, is especially significant. As reported by AFP on Dec. 18, 2006, officials from Lazaro Cardenas met in March 2006 with Kansas City, Mo., officials to sign "an historic cooperative trade agreement to establish a new trans-Pacific trade corridor that will alleviate delays and congestion at [U.S.] West Coast ports." This is another way of saying that at least part of the stream of imported merchandise flowing into those West Coast ports such as the one in Long Beach, Calif., could be redirected to the Cardenas port so these goods can be hauled into the United States with even greater efficiency.
Kansas City, located about 1,000 miles from the U.S. -Mexican border, has been slated as a major trade hub and U.S. Customs inspection location. As noted by Kansas City SmartPort Inc. President Chris Gutierrez, who was interviewed in early December by AFP, Kansas City has the infrastructure, location and overall assets to serve this function well.
Critics charge that having a major U.S. inspection point so far inland may crate huge gaps in monitoring exactly what kinds of things are being shipped into the United States - which doesn't sit well with American trucker-support groups such as Owner-Operated Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). OOIDA warns that under trained Mexican truck drivers, in their poorly inspected trucks pose a danger on the highways and could help bring terrorist elements into the United States.
According to Hutchison Whampoa's own web site, this shipping conglomerate has a single-berth terminal situated in the highly industrial, deep-water Lazaro Cardenas port and plans a second phase there, which "includes the development of an 85-hectare deep-water, green field site with 1,350 meters of berth."
Hutchison Whampoa, which controls 12% of all container port capacity in the world and employs 200,000 people has long been alleged to be either an arm of the Chinese military or beholden to the communist regime - which considers the United States an adversary. This situation has troubled prominent Americans, such as the now deceased Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of staff chairman who pointed out some years ago that Hutchison Whampoa already controls the Atlantic and Pacific seaports of the Panama Canal - that century-old American-made commercial waterway connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific that has a military function and is arguably one of the most strategic choke points on the globe.
So, against the backdrop of China's current massive military build-up, the communist nation's presence in various Western Hemisphere ports should be watched very carefully. This buildup, as repeatedly emphasized by Gus Stelzer, a retired General Motors executive, author and trade analyst, is funded to a large extent by the huge rofits China makes selling goods tariff-free in the United States.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to run gargantuan trade deficits with China. As a proposed remedy, Stelzer advocates levying tariffs against Cina and other nations whose merchandise floods America while American industries, undercut by the onslaught, are forced to downsize, close or go offshore in order to survive.
Rarely, if ever, are American goods allowed to be sold in these nations anywhere near the extent that their goods are sold in the United States, says Stelzer.
OTHER VENTURES
Notably, Hutchison Whampoa - a company whose affiliates delve into the cruise ship business, telecommunications, real estate, hotels, PARKnSHOP grocery stores, Fortress electronics and housewares, along with energy, infrastructure, etc. - has a number of other western Hemisphere port operations.
Hutchison Whampoa has the Ensenada International Terminal (EIT), "strategically situated 110 kilometers south of the U.S.-Mexico border along the Pacific Ocean," Hutchison Whampoa literature states. It adds that EIT has undergone extensive redevelopment involving construction, dredging and new equipment purchases.
Another port maintained by Hutchison Whampoa is the Terminal Internacional de Manzanillo (TIMSA), which started its operations in 1999 and is "aimed at developing the container market on Mexico's Pacific coast. Located at the Mexican port of Manzanillo, TIMSA is ideally situated for Asian trade with Mexico City and Guadalajara, as well as nearby industrialized states," according to Hutchison Whampoa's web site.
Hutchison Whampoa's Panama Ports Company (PPC) operates the ports of Cristobal and Balvoa located at each end of the Panama Canal (large expansion projects are proceeding at both ports).
The shipping company - which has 15 mainland China operations - also runs a Western Hemisphere port in bueenos Aires, consisting of a state-of-the-art terminal with two ship berths, a container freight station and a logistics center; as well as in the Bahamas, where Hutchison Whampoa's Freeport Container Port, a deepwater operation, provides "a transhipment center for the eastern seaboard of the Americas and the principal East/West line haul routes throughout the region," according to company literature.
COMMUNIST CONNECTIONS
Hutchison Whampoa's top executives include Li Tzar Kuoi, aged 41, who has been an executive director since 1995 and deputy chairman since 1999. Kuoi also sits on what is called the "Standing Committee of the 10th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultive Conference of the People's Republic of China."
The top Hutchison Whampoa executive, Li Ka Shing, is considered the wealthiest Chinese individual in the world. Kuoi, named above, is Li Ka Shing's eldest son.
According to the Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, "Li was invited by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping to become a member of the board of directors of the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CIT"IC) to support the economic reform initiatives that Deng was attempting to develop. CITIC is China's largest conglomerate and is 42% owned by the government of China. It serves as the chief investment arm of China's central government and holds ministry status on the Chinese State Council. Li served only one year on CITIC's board before resigning his directorship. For many years, he served as vice chairman of the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank (HSBC)."
Various reports over the last few years, including a NewsMax.com report of June 13, 2001, note that Hutchison Whampoa's subsidiary, HIT, has "business ventures with the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) which is owned by the People's Liberation Army." HIT stands for Hutchison International Terminals.
COSCO missiles, missile components, jet fighters and other
weapons technologies to nations such as Libya, Iraq, Iran and
Pakistan, NewsMax reported in 2001.
|Top|
In a very candid op-ed piece recently appearing in the Israeli online journal YNET, Brig Gen. (Ret.) Oded Tira, former chief artillery officer for the Israeli Defense Forces, confirms in so many words what others have been saying for many years - that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is merely a pawn for the Zionist octopus whose tentacles are to be found in every lever of political power in the United States.
In a piece entitled "What to Do With Iran?" Tira confirms that indeed the Jewish voice in America speaks the loudest when it comes to the business of influencing not only public opinion but public policy.
In this piece, he contradicts the mantra regularly heard being chanted by various talking heads in the american mainstream media that the "inordinate and disproportionate amount of influence" possessed by the Israeli lobby over American foreign policy is an "old canard" dreamt up by anti-Semites.
The General, unmindful of any possible political backlash against himself, comments as follows:
President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for out existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again. We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the U.S. to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraq airspace with the U.S. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan, the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack.
The reader will note certain important things in this piece:
1. That Israel wants Iran hit and wants America to do the dirty
work, rather than risk precious Israeli lives;
2. That Zionist assets both at the governmental and media level
need to be activated in order to get the ball rolling;
3. That by activating assets in Europe, the general is acknowledging
the imternational scope of the Zionist agenda;
4. That the governing cliques of certain Middle Eastern countries
- in this case Saudi Arabia - are merely enaablers for the Zionist
agenda.
CARBON COPIES
In essence, the things casually mentioned by this Israeli general are mere carbon copies of what has been asserted for years by those who have been critical of the power of the Zionist lobby but who have been marginalized and made the brunt of vicious personal attacks for daring to challenge the beast. It is this creature, "the elephant in the room," that those in America are told regularly and forcefully does not exist but which nevertheless is responsible for not only the first and second Gulf wars, but for bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
Will this latest revelation spark a new series of debates amongst the intelligentsia in America? Will it lead to an intellectually honest examination on the part of america's elected leaders of how this present Armageddon has been brought to mankind's doorstep and who is responsible for doing it?
One can always hope, but the sad truth is that this is not
likely. When it comes to the weapons of bribery and blackmail,
nobody does it better than the Zionists. Added to this is the
fact that few there are to be found who are willing to risk their
careers and relative peace of mind over issues of principle or
national interest.
|Top|
Despite all the demonization of Saddam Hussein by the American media, a few facts about Saddam's accomplishments, and of the nature of the campaign to bring Iraq, as a nation, to its knees, managed to slip out in the days following Saddam's recent murder, which was thinly disguised as the administration of justice.
For those who dared to wade through the details, readers of The Washington Post - the powerful daily in the nation's capital - did get some facts about Saddam not reflected in the mass media as a whole.
For example, on Dec. 30, the Post pointed out that life under Saddam in Iraq was not quite as bad as most americans may have thought. The Post noted:
Saddam Hussein created a secular Middle Eastern state known for its vibrant university and public health systems and relatively open to Western values, compared with countries in the region governed by strict religious codes. He also built roads and bridges, launched literacy campaigns and provided free hospital care for Iraqis.
And while many Americans still believe Saddam's trial and hanging was American-style "justice," the Post dared to summarize some of the judicial shenanigans surrounding the Kangaroo court that set up Saddam for what amounted to a public lynching. The Post noted details regarding the flagrant violations of basic civil guarantees surrounding Saddam's trial:
Many human rights groups criticized Saddam's death sentence as unfair and marred by procedural flaws. There was failure to disclose key evidence to Hussein's attorneys, as well as violations of the basic rights of the defendants {saddam and his associates] to confront witnesses rights activists said. The first presiding judge resigned. Iraqi politicians routinely denounced the tribunal as weak. Three defense attorneys for Saddam and his associates and a witness were assassinated. Outbursts by the second chief judge ...undermined his impartiality, the activists said.
Quite in contrast, however, the Post demonstrated how capable that newspaper is in distorting history when it chooses by twisting language in an artful way. The Post described the economic decline of Iraq from 1991 onward in this quaint fashion:
Iraq entered a period of more than a decade of United Nations sanctions that restricted imports of sensitive materials and further impoverished the Iraqi people. The country's economy worsened, and shortages of food and medicine reportedly caused widespread suffering and malnutrition.
To suggest that Iraq "entered" that period (as if Iraq chose its fate) is a linguistically circuitous way to ignore the fact that it was the U.S. - using tis clout at the United Nations - that imposed those sanctions on Iraq, wrecking that nation's once-thriving and already war-damaged economy.
To add insult to injury the Post said that the shortages of food and medicine "reportedly" caused widespread suffering and malnutrition, when it is known that at least a half million Iraqi children died as a consequence of the impact of those sanctions on Iraq.
Once saddam was toppled, following the United states invasion in the spring of 2003, the Bush regime, directed by a handful of pro-Israel zealots known as "neo-conservatives," deliberately worked to destroy Iraq's economic and civil infrastructure. Writing in the Post on Jan.1, even Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, summarized the policies undertaken by neo-conservatives against Iraq:
During those first crucial months following Saddam's ouster, Washington disbanded the Iraqi army, fired 50,000 bureaucrats and shut down the government-owned enterprises that employed most Iraqis. In effect, the United States dismantled the Iraqi state, leaving a deep security vacuum, administrative chaos and soaring unemployment...We did not give Iraqis a republic. We gave them a civil war.
What Zakaria did not say - but which those familiar with Israeli intrigue know - is that turning Iraq into a civil war-torn cauldron of death and destruction has been a longtime Israeli policy goal. Israel prefers to see its Arab and Muslim neighbors in turmoil - as Israeli geopolitical tacticians have accknowledged in writing - and that is precisely what's happening in Iraq today.
Now, of course, Iran is the next target and the Israelis expect
American blood and treasure to wage another undeclared war on
Israel's behalf.
|Top|
The financial press reported last week that the euro, the new currency created only five years ago and used by most European nations, has supplanted the U.S. dollar as the most widely used form of cash internationally. There are now more euros in circulation worldwide than dollars.
This alone is not necessarily troubling, as the dollar remains the world's most important reserve currency. About 65% of foreign central bank exchange reserves are still held in dollars, versus only about 25% in euros. And the European Central Bank faces the same inflationary pressures that our own Federal Reserve bank governors face, including a growing entitlement burden that threatens economic ruin as both societies age. European politicians want to spend money just as badly as American politicians, and undoubtedly will clamor to inflate - and thus devalue - the euro to fund their creaky social systems.
Still, the rise of the euro internationally is another sign that the U.S. dollar is not what it used to be. There is increasing pressure on nations to buy and sell oil in euros, and anecdotal evidence suggest that drug dealers and money launderers now prefer euros to dollars. Historically, the underground cash economy has always sought the most stable and valuable paper currency to conduct business.
More importantly, our greatest benefactors for the last 20 years - Asian central banks - have lost their appetite for holding U.S. dollars. China, Japan and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks understand that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency. When the rest of the world finally abandons the dollar as the global reserve currency, both Congress and American consumers will find borrowing money a more expensive proposition.
Remember, America can maintain a large trade deficit only if foreign banks continue to hold large numbers of dollars as their reserve currency. Our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.
At some point Americans must realize that Congress, and the Federal Reserve system that permits the creation of new money by fiat, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more that the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the U.S. government must either borrow or print money to operate - both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop.
When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the
government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply
by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect
our dollars to increase in value.
|Top|
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the new glory boy of the Democratic Party, is unable to cover up his cocaine use, his seedy investments and his brief but left-wing record. Long before he considered political implications, Obama wrote about using illicit drugs such as cocaine. He cannot shrug it off as youthful indiscretion, as in Bill Clinton's claim that he "did not inhale" marijuana, because Obama wrote about this during his 30s in his memoir Dreams From My Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance.
His memoir was largely ignored and voters were unaware of his cocaine use when he was elected to the Senate two years ago. But now that he is on the national stage as a potential presidential nominee, the book is selling briskly and voters are becoming aware.
Obama tells of using drugs in high school and college. He is the first potential president to ever admit using cocaine. He also writes about his struggle for "racial identity" as the son of a black man from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas. The father returned to Africa when Obama was two and he was reared by his mother.
His office struggles to keep his positions politically correct without offending any voting bloc. The job is made easier because, with less that two years as a senator, he has a small record.
His office and web site say Obama wants a "social safety net" for old people, wants to provide an education to all from kindergarten through college or vocational school, wants to deal with illegal immigration and considers health care a "right" and not a "privilege."
But an examination of the positions he has been forced to take, as subtly as possible, reveal Obama as a left-wing extremist. Former House Majority Leader Tom delay (R-Tex.), speaking at the Heritage foundation, summed it up:
"Barack Obama is a Marxist leftist. He is a dangerous man... He is also a smart politician. Obama has found the Rep..Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) Way of campaigning which they learned from Bill Clinton: Tell the people what they want to hear but don't tell them who you really are... Conservatives need to tell the people about this man."
Both Obama and Ford have used "religion to soften their image on values," Delay said.
Delay has predicted that Obama would become running mate to Sen. Hillary Clinton, and the two together would win the presidential race in 2008.
"Hillary Clinton will be the next president," Delay said. "She has a coalition unlike anything America has seen." He cited such individuals and groups as Harold Ickes, Bilderberg billionaire George Soros and others. "I have never seen a more powerful coalition than the one the Democrats have," he said.
Such a ticket would give a warn glow to the champions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism."Already, the mainstream press is slavering over the two presidential hopefuls, though neither has officially declared their candidacy.
Is this the Bilderberg ticket? In 1991, Bill Clinton was the obscure governor of Arkansas when summoned to his first Bilderberg meeting. He was elected president in 1992. In 1997, first lady Hillary Clinton attended Bilderberg at Lake Lanier, Ga. The White House first denied her presence, but when the now-defunct Spotlight said it was prepared to carry the story of her presence along with the denial the administration admitted her presence.
Groups on the right and left who monitor congressional votes agree that Obama is left wing. The left-wing Americans for Democratic Action give Obama a 100% rating. The American conservative Union gives him a mere 8%. The anti-tax National Taxpayers Union gave him an F for his 2 005 votes, not surprising for a senator who has voted with his party 97 % of the time. In 2005. Obama voted with the ACLU 83% of the time.
Obama voted against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both strong advocates of courts interpreting law instead of legislating from the bench. Even Democrats Rus Feingold (WI) and Pat Leahy (VT) voted for Roberts.
Obama voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions twice as an Illinois state senator. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment while claiming to believe marriage should be between a man and woman.
Despite his squeaky-clean press image, Obama has some dirt on his hands. Antoin "Tony" is a Chicago deal-maker and campaign fund raiser. He was indicted in October on influence-peddling charges. In June 2005, Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent properties on Chicago's South Side, both closing the same day. Seven months later, wanting a bigger yard for his $1.65 million house. Obama bought part of the Rezko property for $104,500.
Sound like a good price for land in that high-dollar part of Chicago? Obama told The Washington Post that he was "bone-headed" for making such a "mistake." As penitence, he donated to charity $11,500 Rezko had contributed to his campaign.
Backers of Obama included George Soros, Steven Spielberg and
a host of corporate law firms and investment companies and lobbying
groups, which helped the Illinois senator to raise tens of millions
of dollars for his senate campaign.
|Top|
Human memory is like an onion, I have decided. Once you have peeled off one skin and written it down, you realize the next time you look that there was another layer of forgotten memories just beneath it.
As I lay one night in my two-foot-wide cot alone in Cell 19, in "C" Block in the notorious "Landl", the grim Josefstadt prison, built in the center of Vienna in 1839, listening to the dim sounds of the hausarbeiter [janitor] cleaning the tiled corridor on the other side of the six-inch-thick strongroom-type door separating me from the outside world, I found I had suddenly recalled the next tranche [block] of names in my class list at Brentwood School, nearly 60 years before.
It must have been 3 a.m. I had no clock or watch, or radio or television, with which to judge the time. Just blank walls, with a few snapshots of my children. I still had each name's corresponding face in my memory, but the faces have also aged so I would not recognize them instantly today.
Four months had already passed since I arrived in Austria for two days in Nov. 11, 2005, to talk to a Vienna student body-the powerful Burschenschaft, or student fraternity, "Olympia"-about the secret watch kept on Joel Brand's negotiations with Adolf Eichmann by British intelligence and our codebreakers. My trial in the country's biggest courtroom- to accommodate the world's media-would begin on Feb. 20, 2005.*
Apart from three visits lasting a few hours each in 1991, 1992, and 1993 I had not been in Austria since 1989, for which latter visit I was now condemned to serve three years in jail, charged with expressing illegal opinions on World War II history. Yes, I should have stuck to the consensus view-the kind of history that the conformist historians peddle. Everybody said that; the judge, the jury, the Austrian and German press, even my own lawyer Dr. Elmar Kresbach said that. Then I would not be languishing in jail like this. My own fault entirely.
"However," consoled Kresbach, smiling an oily Vienneselawyer smile, and referring to the blanket coverage he had won for himself in the international press, and even in the less free world like China, North Korea, Iran and Russia, "you are now undeniably a martyr."
"That was not my intention," I said bitterly. "I just wanted to speak to those students and go home."
I had taken [my daughter] Jessica, 11, to the Saint James's Park tube station for school before setting out for Heathrow airport in my rental car. Did I suspect that many moons would pass before I saw her and [Jessica's mother] Bente again? I wrote as much in my diary; I prudently left that in London, with my laptop, before flying over to Basle in western Switzerland.
From the airport I phoned my good friend the playwright Rolf Hochhuth, but he was in Berlin, so dinner with him was out. He had just left Basle after his wife's death, he said, he sounded very cast down, and had not even received my letter. In another rented car I drove east all night through Zürich and into Austria. I had decided not to risk flying direct. These are all police states now, with state police-Staatspolizei like the Gestapo with which we historians are familiar.
After 900 kilometers I was in Vienna by 8 a.m. As soon as it was decent, I phoned Christopher V., my student host, from the West Railroad Station.
"Rendezvous A," I said, without identifying myself. "One hour from now."
We had prearranged the details six months earlier. Security like this was necessary. The last time I spoke in Vienna, on Nov. 6, 1989, the Jewish, communist and far-left organizations had brought 5,000 demonstrators out into the capital's streets, and 500 riot police had had to put a ring of steel around the big Park Hotel.
The rendezvous was inside the ticket hall. It was not ideal; the hall was 500 yards long, but it had a long balcony where I positioned myself looking for any signs of trouble-the odd furled banner, or any gathering of the unwashed. I knew what signs to look for. Five minutes after the hour I strolled outside to check whether anybody was prowling round the car.
A young student in his 20s emerged from the station and we made eye contact. I nodded with my head toward the car and we drove off down the Ring [boulevard], with him at the wheel. I wanted to check him out before we went further.
"Let's get a coffee at the Café Landtmann," I suggested, in a fit of nostalgia. That was where I was first arrested at a press conference on the orders of the Minister of the Interior Karl Blecha in 1983. It cost him dearly; we were awarded heavy damages. It seemed like yesterday.
"You're speaking at 6," the student said. He agreed that I could put my head down at the Burschenschaft building for three or four hours first.
Still half suspecting that the function might not take place, I asked him to grab a snapshot under the Landtmann's canopy as proof that I was in Vienna. It would certainly irritate some folks back in London. The Board of Deputies of British Jews had written in June 1992 to the Austrian government, livid at hearing of my recent visit to the country, and demanding my immediate arrest the next time. Some "Britons"!
I had obtained a copy of their letter during a court action against the prime minister of Australia, no less. Strange, the things that turn out to have been going on all along unseen, unheard-like the termites gnawing at the woodwork of a rotten building. Not that they are an international conspiracy, of course-they have always denied that. They are the great hypocrisy-deniers.
Finishing his lemon tea at the Landtmann, Christopher, a law student, picked up his cell phone-which they call a "handy" here, in that German mania for inappropriate English-and said: "I'll tell them you'll be over for a nap right away."
I was uneasy. Mensch, I thought, phoning? On a mobile? Das kann nicht gut gehen.
He expected 200 or 300 to come. "A r e yo u s u r e i t i s secure?" I asked, and he nodded dismissively. "Our folks don't talk."
Perhaps 25 minutes passed between his phone call and our reaching the building.
We parked two blocks away behind it. Instinct made me think ahead. "Is there a rear exit?" I asked. He shook his head. Not good.
Still visualizing what could go wrong, I slipped him the car keys: "If we get separated, you drive off," I said, anticipating Red violence otherwise and costly damage to the car. "And I'll phone you later."
We turned the last corner. I saw three burly goons peel off the wall on the other side of the otherwise empty street across from the entrance.
Phrases from Raymond Chandler skidded through my brain. What would Philip Marlowe have done?
In their early 40s, they were stubble-faced and wearing weatherproof jackets-they were hard to place. There was something about them that reminded me of the thugs with baseball bats who smashed up my Chicago dinner in September 2000. After a moment's hesitation, they crossed the street diagonally toward us.
Ignoring them, we walked right through them. "Mahlzeit," I nodded: good afternoon. "Let's drop into that Kneipe," I murmured-the bar on the next corner.
"Too late," said Christopher, dropping the car keys furtively into my hand. "They're following. I recognize one. Staatspolizei!" I doubted it. How could he know the Stapo by sight?
This was no time for "The Long Goodbye." We split at the corner. Briefly out of sight, I quickened my pace. The Ford Focus was out of sight round the next corner. One of the goons was following me, a hundred yards behind; two were pursuing Christopher.
Round the final corner I speeded up again, walking briskly in the middle of the street, not visibly aiming for anything. I pressed the remote, and heard the soft answering clunk of the car doors unlocking. I ripped open the front right-hand door and dropped in and locked the door. The goon was 90 yards away, and began to trot. Suppose he took out a gun?
My hands reached for the wheel-it wasn't there. It was not a British car. I was on the wrong side. Jeez, I'm getting senile, perhaps just exhausted. Impossible to climb across. Fifty yards. I leaped out and hurled myself into the other side, displaying as much nonchalance as I could, commensurate with the urgency of the moment. The engine started first time, the man was 20 yards off, then 10, but with wheels skidding in the gravel I was already moving. I caught a glimpse of him in the mirror, and it was not good. He had a pad in his hand, and he was writing. So he was Staatspolizei, as Christopher had said.
An Israeli newspaperman later learned from his contacts that a senior, older, member of the "Olympia" had tipped off the police-a dueling offense if ever there was one. So I was on the run from their secret police, and this was Vienna. It was not a happy moment. I am a professional, and I have never let down an audience yet. In the prison yard the old hands told me, "Yer should've dumped the car right then, Dave."
Easily said. I could have phoned [car rental company] Sixt and told them where their car was. I had only 40 euros on me ($50); the students owed me a lot of expenses, but had not had time to pay; 40 would not have gotten me far.
I stuck with the car and traveled fast. I took the next four corners on two wheels. It would be easy to submerge myself in Vienna. I could not get this zither music out of my head. The "Harry Lime" theme. I wanted to put distance between myself and those burly gentlemen, because in this scenario they were definitely not the good guys. I parked back at the rendezvous point, and cautiously phoned Christopher.
"Shall we meet in an hour's time," I suggested, "at that place you took the photo?"
"I don't think that would be advisable," he said in a strained voice.
"You can't speak?"
"No."
In Staatspolizei custody, but it puzzled me that they had left him his mobile, his "handy." The inappropriate name still irritated me, the more I thought about it. Handy? Handy for whom?
Home therefore, and don't spare the horses. London via Basle, and calling at no stations in between. I assumed that all routes due west would be watched, if they were really looking out for me. It seemed hard to believe, after 16 years. After all, these are the much-vaunted "free democracies."
I bought a map book, checked the freeways and decided I could still get back to Basle in time for my return flight next day if I drove nonstop south, west through Italy, and then north, adding perhaps 1,000 kilometers to the normally 900 kilometer journey.
It was time for the "Third Man" to make his final getaway -from Austria's new "democratic" Stapo. I waited until darkness fell and the Ring was choked with rush hour traffic; I figured I could just make it. I set off down the A2, the southern freeway, toward Italy. I was glad I carried no mobile phone myself; they now all have built in GPS chips as an aid-to the authorities.
I gassed up, and put the tape recorder on the seat next to me, so I could dictate over the next few hours. As the lights of Vienna fell behind me, the "Harry Lime" theme began to fade too.
After an hour or so my gaze fell on the instrument panel:
"You are on the A2, 140 km south of Vienna," the satellite navigation screen told me-and whom else, I suddenly wondered. There seemed to be no way to switch off the treacherous instrument. But it was a Swiss car, I reasoned, and the Stapo were Austrians.
After another hour I settled down to a steady 110 kilometers per hour, and there was now a police car some way in front. It obviously was not chasing. After another hour, a second police car showed up in my mirror, and I was not so sure.
They both maintained my exact speed, no matter how I modestly slowed or accelerated. Using the standard "box" maneuver-a simple "please" would have sufficed-they suddenly forced me off the freeway at speed, and halted me on the hard shoulder in a cloud of dust and gravel.
As the other cars sped past inches away in the darkness, eight uniformed cops jumped out and began running toward me, shouting hysterically.
I do so hate unpleasantness. I reached for my tape recorder. It glinted on the passenger seat next to me. I saw that the running cops thumping on the Ford were all carrying drawn automatics, nine-millimeter Glocks, and they were actually pointing them at my head. It was a most uncivil sensation.
I decided that it might be unrewarding to point something metallic at them after all. The recorder slipped from my nerveless fingers-that's how Chandler would have put it.
It was now evident to me that I would not be seeing London, Bente, and Jessica anytime soon after all.
* Accused under a catch-all Stalin-era law of "revising National Socialism," Irving was sentenced to a three-year jail term. On Dec. 21, 2006 the court of appeal ordered his release.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Through a Freedom of Information Act Request, a private group recently obtained a copy of a 2004 agreement between the United states and Mexico that will allow hundreds of thousands of non-citizens to receive Social security benefits. The agreement creates a so-called "totalization" plan between the two nations. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments simply to make sure American citizens living abroad did not suffer from double taxation with respect to social Security taxes. From there, however, totalization agreements have become vehicles for non-citizens to become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The new agreement with Mexico would make an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens elegible in the next five years.
Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the United States could reach $1 billion by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated 5 million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program.
According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.
It's important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it's supposed to work.
There are obvious reasons to oppose a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico. First, our Social Security system already faces trillions of dollars in future shortages as the Baby Boomer generation retires and fewer young workers pay into the system. Adding hundreds of thousands of non-citizens to the social Security rolls can only hasten the day of reckoning.
Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for non-citizens abroad. Remember, there is no real Social Security trust, and the distinction between income taxes and payroll taxes is entirely artificial. The Social Security contributions made by non-citizens are spent immediately as general revenues. So while it's unfortunate that some are forced to pay into a system from which they might never receive a penny, the same can be said of younger American citizens. If non-citizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens.
Also, totalization agreements allow non-citizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the United States for as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work here for only a year and a half, return to Mexico, and retire with full U.S. benefits. This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work more quarters even to quality for benefits - especially younger people who face the possibility tht there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to
Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands
some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged. While poverty
in Mexico truly is saddening, the fact remains that Congress has
no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another
foreign aid program.
|Top|
This news article is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced here,
but it can be read on the Internet at: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070107_war.htm
|Top|
Thoughtful American taxpayers and citizens should look beyond the initial euphoria caused by the mass slaughter in Iraq (more than 100,000 civilian casualties in Baghdad as of Jan. 20, 1991) and consider the future, even if such an exercise may diminish their enthusiasm for all the gore.
The great pundits and intellectual who are bringing this "extravaganda" (extravaganza/propaganda) into our homes via the magic of TV never tire of assuring us that "This will not be another Vietnam," and "We are fighting to win this time.
The two statements are not necessarily compatible. The master strategists who brought us the bitter vup of defeat in Vietnam fought a no-win war, meaning that they tried to lose.
(Incidentally, during the Vietnam War they all lied denying that they were deliberately fighting to lose. Now they admit it. So you now believe that they're telling you the truth about this war?)
Contrary to Vietnam, the present war will not be fought to lose. It will be fought to win.
But because it is impossible to win this war, we will inevitably lose it. Thus, this is another no-win war and our defeat will be far, far greater than that in Vietnam.
Why is this war a loser? Why can't we win it? Here are dome reasons:
• The absolute minimum cost of this war will be a trillion
dollars and the cost will drag on for years and years. The American
economy, in its weak condition (created mainly by the same free-trade
theorists who are directing the war) cannot support this loss
on top of everything else. The cost of the war will complete the
devastation of the economy.
• Even if we win the battles quickly and conquer Iraq, the
cost of providing minimum sustenance for the subjugated civilians
and trying to repair enough of the devastated country to get the
country functioning again will be astronomical.
• Even if we win the battles and kill Saddam's troops by
the hundreds of thousands our troops will have to remain in the
area indefinitely. Perpetual guerrilla warfare against our troops
and continuing casualties are to be expected. The annual cost
in lives and dollars cannot be estimated.
• The war will - and already is - turning all of the Muslim
and Third World people around the world against us. It is a total
public relations disaster for America - once the world's beacon
of hope. Our destruction of Baghdad and the Israeli pulverizing
of Tikrit cannot be approved by any decent person.
• Terrorism inside America is to be expected indefinitely,
and thanks to the lunatics who have made our national borders
as porous as a sieve, terrorism could get serious.
• The Bill of Rights is certain to be set aside if terrorism
becomes a problem. If the war continues, critics are likely to
be thrown into concentration camps with real or imagined terrorists.
• If the war escalates to a ground war and American casualties
mount, social upheaval is to be expected, especially among minorities.
• War always destabilizes the social order, and is felt in
a million ways. The effects of the Vietnam misadventure created
tremendous changes in the way America thinks, acts and looks and
none was to the good. Respect for America and the American system
will further erode, especially among youth, which will identify
the criminal brutality of this "kinder and gentler"
war as the American system.
• War upsets all business plans, projections and calculations.
It will bankrupt millions and make fortunes for the dregs of society
- the sleazy crooks, con and profiteers who always surface during
war.
• War always increases the size and power of the government.
Expect more socialism, more bureaucracy, more corruption, more
government interference, more restrictions on the law-abiding
public.
• The war channels attention toward itself, and away from
the really important things that are happening in America and
the rest of the world. It thus paralyzes attempts to cure our
own ills as we insanely try to cure the ills of others.
• The fact is, there is absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever
that the American people can derive from this war. This is not
to say that no one will profit from it. Many will, but ot the
people who are supposed to be running this one-time Republic.
• Most importantly, this is a no-win war because there is
no legitimate war aim - a war aim visualizing an attainable goal
in the interests of the United States that will justify the cost.
The reasons that Bush has given for this war are pathetic but
the best he can come up with. Because there is no legitimate war
aim, we lost the war the instant it started.
• the real purposes of the war are to destroy an enemy of
Israel, to perpetuate the Trilateral monopoly on Mideast oil,
to further move America toward a world government (Bush's "New
World Order"), and to distract attention from the corruption
of the crooks in the federal government. These will be the winners
of the war, everybody else except the Arabian and Kuwaiti oligarches
will be the losers.
So not everyone will lose the war. Only the people who have
to fight and pay for it. That's why this is another no-win war.
|Top|
Two patriotic border patrolmen will begin serving more than a combined 20 years in prison on July 17, unless President George W. Bush makes a last-minute commutation of their sentences or grants them pardons.
Despite an appeal to the white House by 53 members of the House of Representatives, including outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert, President bush has turned a deaf ear to the men's plight.
According to a spokesman for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the only thing the House members have heard from the administration is the receipt of a form letter, which explains how a citizen may apply to the White House for a pardon, the same form sent to anyone making an inquiry to the White House.
The new democratic leadership in the House has also ignored the men's plight, including rep. Sylvestre Reyes, who is chairman of the House's Intelligence committee and represents Texas's District 16, which encompasses the area where the incident occurred leading to the arrest and prosecution of the two border patrolmen.
Reyes, an Hispanic-American like the two agents, is presumably concerned, as the House leader on intelligence matters, with terrorists and other illegal aliens crossing America's southern border with Mexico, casing a national security crisis in America.
DRUG SMUGGLER
The border patrolmen, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, have been sentenced to 10 and 11 years respectively, for shooting and wounding an illegal alien drug trafficker they caught trying to smuggle a nan-load of marijuana and cocaine across the border from Mexico into Texas in 2005.
After being stopped by Compean and then wrestling the agent to the ground, the drug trafficker was fleeing back across the border when Ramos, who was pursuing him on foot, fired at him when he thought the man had turned to point a gun at him.
The illegal thug was hit in a buttock but managed to make it back across the Rio Grande River, where he fled from the scene in another van that awaited him.
The two agents purportedly violated the Bush administration's regulations that border patrolmen not pursue fleeing illegals, drug traffickers, smugglers and other criminals. This has left many of America's Border Patrol officers scratching their heads as to how they are supposed to catch illegal aliens crossing the border if they are not supposed to go after them.
The smuggler was given amnesty to return to the United States to testify against Campean and Ramos. His deal came in spite of the fact that 10 months after he was caught by Border Patrol the first time he again attempted to smuggle a half ton of marijuana across the border.
Reps. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.) And Rohrabacher attempted a final public appeal in Washington on Jan. 9 to to save the men from their plight, but Bush appears to be totally uninterested in helping them.
Rohrabacher urged readers of American Free Press to
call the White House to express their outrage over the injustice
meted out to officers who tried to do their duty.
|Top|
SASABE, Arizona-In early January, a band of Mexican gunmen thought to be wearing either military uniforms or body armor entered the United States near Sasabe, Ariz., to test the mettle of the National Guard and see how far they could get. Accounts differ as to how many of them crossed onto U.S. soil, and it's not clear how far they got, but there's a general consensus that the invaders were on a scouting mission.
There was no exchange of gunfire between the invaders and Guardsmen, and no one was injured. The Guardsmen-who are posted on hilltops next to Army-green tents and serve as extra eyes and ears for the Border Patrol-reportedly were forced to flee from the gunmen, who later retreated back to Mexico. The Guardsmen, like the Minuteman citizen groups that are continually forming in several border states, only observe illegal border crossings and do not apprehend illegal aliens, limiting themselves to issuing reports to the U.S. Border Patrol.
The invasion by the gunmen took place Wednesday, Jan. 3, around 11 p.m. local time. National Guard Sgt. Edward Balaban told the Associated Press in a Jan. 5 article: "U.S. Border Patrol officials are investigating the . . . incident and trying to determine who the armed people were and why they approached the post near Sasabe, in the desert corridor between Nogales and Lukeville."
Balaban said the troops "didn't know how many people were involved because it was so dark."
But Al Garza of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), contacted by AFP, understands the Guardsmen had night-vision equipment, as did the intruders. He added that the armed incursion "was a deliberate perimeter probe" by an "infantry-trained force."
Garza heard from reliable sources that the invaders were wearing helmets and vests and were armed. He speculated that the gunmen may have been current or former regular Mexican soldiers subcontracting for drug cartels.
"This is a known drug area," Garza noted, pointing out that the Guardsmen were stationed there in the first place due to heavy human and drug smuggling in the vicinity. He also noted that at Naco, Ariz., where the MCDC's private Border Fence Project took root, there have been similar sightings of gunmen in recent months, but they did not enter the United States. He believes the fence acts as a reasonable deterrent to would-be invaders, who always seek the path of least resistance.
According to various accounts, what's known as the west desert corridor, where the invasion took place, has been the busiest in the "Tucson Sector" for marijuana seizures since last year. About 124,000 pounds of marijuana have been seized there since Oct. 1, said Border Patrol spokesman Rob Daniels. In that particular sector, marijuana seizures were up 28% this year, according to Border Patrol figures.
There also is an account of this standoff by Jim Kouri, a certified protection professional, terrorism expert, writer, commentator and contributing editor for Chief of Police Magazine. Kouri serves as the fifth vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
Kouri wrote in a Jan. 8 on-line column: "Since arriving in mid-June [2006] the Guard has assisted the Border Patrol by manning control rooms, doing vehicle and helicopter maintenance, repairing roads and fences, constructing vehicle barriers and fences and spotting and reporting illegal entrants in entrance-identification teams. There are dozens of National Guard entrance-identification teams along the Mexican border, including east and west of both Nogales and Sasabe and on the Tohono O'odham Nation [Papago Indians]. All of the teams are unarmed."
Garza told AFP, however, that he understands that at least some of the Guardsman are armed but are instructed not to return fire if fired upon.
Kouri added: "With more Border Patrol agents and National Guard troops patrolling the Arizona section of the U.S.-Mexican border, it has become more difficult to smuggle drugs and people across, which may have caused drug and human smugglers to become more aggressive."
He continued: "In a story that should have rang alarm bells in every newsroom across the nation, armed Mexicans entered the United States and attacked unarmed National Guard troops working at a Border Patrol post near the U.S.-Mexican border. The troops had to retreat to safety. Not surprisingly, the news story received scant coverage by the mainstream news media and hardly a mention on the Fox News Channel. It's a story that should outrage all Americans including President George W. Bush."
Bush announced last spring he would authorize the deployment of about 6,000 Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol.
American Free Press reporter Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com. He has been in the news business for more that 25 years. Watch future AFP issues for more of Mark's "on-the-scene" reports and one-on-one interviews all of vital interest to America's future.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
This week, Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Ron Paul took steps toward
announcing they may run for president. AFP spoke with their offices
to get all of the details. Though neither has officially announced
he is running for president, either candidate would be a welcome
change to business as usual in Washington.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) offers the nation a chance to return to constitutional government by running for president. He took the first step toward seeking the Republican nomination by forming an exploratory committee. This was studiously ignored by the mainstream media that became hysterical when Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) took the same step.
Anamarie Pratt of Paul's staff told AFP Jan. 17 that no date
has been set for Paul's formal announcement. AFP readers know
Paul well; his column is a weekly feature and he receives prominent
attention in Spotlight on Congress including this week.
If Paul can overcome, with the help of patriotic Americans, obstacles faced by no other politician in history, the nation can be saved. Those obstacles are the lack of money, and the hostility from within his own Republican Party, even in his home state of Texas.
Most politicians are owned by big companies and organizations that throw big buck at them in exchange for votes and favors. The overwhelming majority of Paul's campaign contributions (92.5% in 2004 and 96.8% in 2006) come from individuals.
After two terms in the House, Paul ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket, placing third in the popular vote behind George H.W. Bush and Mike Dukakis. In 1996, Paul was again elected to the House despite opposition from Republican leaders. Mainstream Republican leaders backed incumbent Greg Laughlin, a Democrat who obligingly agreed to turn Republican in the election that gave the GOP control of both houses of Congress. Leaders of the Texas Republican Party tried to beat him again in 1998, but Paul won the nomination and the election.
Because of the Republican Party's hostility to Paul 71.4% of his contributions come from out of stated from patriots wh support his strong position on the Constitution. His stands have made him a national candidate elected from a single Texas district. Being from a big state with a huge delegation has been an advantage in every national party convention in the past. But if Paul enjoys the"favorite sone" role, it will be because voters scared the pants off Republican leaders.
Republicans, like Democrats, are terrified at the thought of a constitutionalist like Paul in the White House. They do not want to enforce the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which gives the federal the federal government certain "enumerated" powers and retains all others to the states. If enforced, the Department of Education would shut down - Congress has no role whatsoever in state school systems. Many other bureaucracies would be shut down, also.
Paul strongly advocates limited government and taxes, often casting a lone dissenting vote, earning a title that should make the obstetrician proud: "Dr. No." He strictly opposes U.S. intervention in the affairs of other nations, having voted against the Iraq war resolution when, for example, Dens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) And John Kerry (Mass.) voted to support the invasion. He voted against the Patriot Act in 2001 and persistently criticizes its compromises on civil liberties.
Paul breaks with Republicans in Congress and the White House on so-called "free" trade agreements because they send American jobs overseas where slave wages are paid and domestic products are undervalued.
TANCREDO TOO
Another of the few good congressmen is also planning a run for the White House, and he would make the perfect running Mate for Paul. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) said he is running for president because no other candidate supports his strong views about controlling the border and opposing amnesty for those who entered the country illegally.
Tancredo's record matches Paul's with one sin, of which he has repented. Tancredo voted for the NAFTA "free" trade agreement but now regrets that vote, his office told AFP on Jan. 17. He now opposes NAFTA and voted against CAFTA. The fact that he is strong enough to admit a mistake and change his position accordingly recommends him.
Tancredo, before he knew that Paul was coming on stage, said:
"As I look at the current presidential candidates - Republicans
and Democrats - I simply do not see one who reflects the grass-roots,
majority belief of Americans that our borders must be secured
that employers who hire illegals must be prosecuted, and that
no one who has broken our immigraiton laws should ever be put
on a ‘pathway to citizenship.'"
|Top|
Predictions at the Bilderberg meeting last June that "variable rate" home financing and so-called predatory lending would cause many Americans to lose their homes have proven true. So far, about 2.2 million homeowners with high-interest mortgages with high-interest mortgages have lost their homes to foreclosure or could do so within a few years experts report.
New developments with many firs-time buyers and neighborhoods with many black and Hispanic homeowners will be the most affected, said Keith Ernst, senior policy counsel at the Center for responsible Lending based in Durham, N.S. Blacks and Hispanics are most likely to pay high interest rates because of poor credit scores and minimal down payments, Ernst said.
"We fully share the concerns of the Center for Responsible Lending," said Pat Combs, president of the National Association of Realtors, who joined in the recent press conference in Washington. "Far too many American families are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure."
About 223,000 households with such loans lost their homes to foreclosure in just three months during the third quarter of 2006 and 725,000 had missed payments, according to the Mortgage Association Analysts expected many more in 2007 and 2008.
THE HUNT IS ON
Meanwhile, the hunt is on determine where bilderberg will attempt to hold a secret meeting this spring. Traditionally, bilderberg meets for two years in Europe and a third year in North America. So it's Europe's turn. Danny Estulin, a photo-journalist who has collaborated with and supplied photographs to AFP for years, is again assisting in the search for Bilderberg.
Whether to raise interest rates and taxes in the United States is dure to be on the Bilderberg agenda again this year. Bilderberg has demonstrated its raw power to impose higher taxes and require more foreign aid from the United States over the years. A classic example came in 1991, when President George bush No. 41 was ordered to break his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Bush folowed orders and lost the 1992 election to Bilderberg recruit bill Clinton.
As forecast at the last bilderberg meeting, banks have been inducing buyers with "teaser" interest rates that kick up in two years, providing second mortgages to cover down payments and even financing 100% of a home loan and allowing buyers to pay interest-only, with nothing applied to principal. At that rate, the buyer owes as much 30 years later as he does at the outset. When "teaser" rates take their automatic leap or follow increases in the prime rate, homeowners must pay hundreds of dollars more a month in interest. They often are the potential victims of foreclosure.
Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, warned of this at Bilderberg's annual secret meeting near Ottawa, Canada last June (American Free Press, June 26, 2006).
"Bilderberg expects interest rates to rise and many Americans to lose their homes in the months ahead," AFP reported. "Geithner predicted rising interest rates and difficulties for families that have obtained adjustable rate mortgages, or ‘variable' interest rates. Many are likely to lose their homes as rising home mortgage rates add hundreds of dollars to their monthly payments, he said."
While "most listened solemnly and some expressed concern,
one was heard to say ‘stupid Americans deserve their fate'."
AFP reported.
|Top|
While the president's announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president's sharp rhetoric toward Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East.
The president stated last week that, "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria." He also announced the deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and the deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East. Meanwhile, U.S. troops stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraq and detained several Iranian diplomats. Taken together, the message was clear: the administration intends to move the United States closer to a dangerous and ill-advised conflict with Iran.
As I said recently on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran - possibly with nuclear weapons.
The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than 10 years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can.
This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don't seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. Those democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president's announcement, but then praised the president's confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for "redeployment." Redeployment to where? Iran?
We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.
The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.
The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:
The United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United states should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.
In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation tht urges the
administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Goup. Dialogue
and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation
in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent
extremism and terrorism.
|Top|
House Patriots are testing a secret plan by the administration to effectively merge the United States with Mexico and Canada, the first step toward turning the western Hemisphere into the "American Union," with the "amero" becoming the common currency for all these countries.
A resolution opposing this treason has been introduced by Republican Reps. Virgil Goode (Va.), Walter Jones (N.C.), ron Paul (Tex.) and Tom Tancedo (Colo.).
"Documents recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal details of the plan to merge the U.S with Mexico and Canada, creating a ‘North American Union' which would erase out borders, replace the dollar with the ‘amero' lead to unlimited immigration, and render the Constitution of the United States meaningless," said a statement from a coalition backing the resolution.
The coalition, led by the Conservative Caucus said Congress should also detail the proposed "NAFTA Superhighway" during a press conference in Washington. The Mexico-to-Canada highway is seen as part of creating the single entity of the "North American Union."
In march 2005, the papers reveal, President Bush met with Vicente Fox, then president of Mexico, and other officials and agreed to establish the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." but the agreement was never submitted to Congress for approval. Instead, the Department of Commerce created a new division under the same title to advance the North American Union agenda.
Federal agencies have adopted 30 "work plans" by "agreements" between the three nations with Congress having no voice - or even knowledge - of these actions. "The plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies," said Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus and the former presidential candidate of the Constitution Party.
"What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat," Phillips said. "Yet we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-plus as a first, implementing step."
But Mexico is less coy. On its government web site, the project is described as a permanent, trilateral process to create a major integration of North American.
The Council on Foreign Relations, the propaganda ministry of the shadowy group known as bilderberg, laid out the blueprint in its "Building a New North American Community" report in May 2005: "The Task Force's central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community....
"The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within.... boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just and prosperous North America, " the CFR report said.
If the goal of establishing the "American Union" throughout the continent is achieved, the U.S. Congress would be subordinate to the "American Parliament," the Supreme court would be subordinate to the "American Union Court" and the Constitution would be rendered a dead letter.
After the European Union was established, Britons were shocked
at being jailed for breaking laws passed by the European Parliament
and when the European Court invalidated some of their national
laws.
|Top|
New York money is not only playing a big part in 2008 presidential campaign politics, but it's also a driving force behind the ongoing push by pro-Israel fanatics at the highest levels of U.S. policy making to force the United States into a senseless war against Iran.
That's the only conclusion that can be reached based on a survey of recent news reports - circulation largely within publications in Israrl and in the American Jewish community - that have not been brought to the attention of most Americans through the aegis of the so-called "mainstream media."
It's almost as if the major media in America is simply determined to prevent average Americans from knowing that there are some people who believe that Israel and its well-heeled financial backers in the United States are the primary advocates for U.S. Military action against Iran.
GENERALLY SPEAKING... Former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark (left) stands with former anti-gun icon Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) during a news conference in washington to call on the bush Administration to offer a new plan that will change the course in Iraq. President George W. Bush addressed the nation later that night to unveil his new plan for the war in Iraq which recommends sending 21,000 more troops to fight on the streets of Baghdad. In an interview with liberal "blogger" Arianna Huffington, Clark said that "New York" Zionist money was continuing to influence the war policies of the United States. |
Perhaps the most explosive comments in this regard came from Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and who- until now, at least - was considered a likely candidate for the Democratic nod in 2008. In a recent interview with columnist Arianna Huffington, Clark said that he believed that the Bush administration is determined to wage war against Iran. When asked why he believed this, Clark said:
In short, Clark was saying that powerful New York-based financial
interests (those who he called "the New York money people")
are putting pressure on political candidates and incumbent politicians
to support a war against Iran.In fact, Despite this, Clark has now come under fire and is being accused of "anti-Semitism" or otherwise charged with lending credence to what are dismissed as "anti-Israel and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories," which - Clark's critics say - suggest that Israel and its supporters are prime movers behind the drivef or war. |
Because Clark is the son of a Jewish father (although he didn't know that until several years ago, having been raised by a Christian mother and a Christian step-father who never told Clark of his Jewish heritage), some Jewish leaders are pulling their punches, recognizing that it sounds somewhat outlandish to call clark "anti-Jewish." But the word is definitely out in the American Jewish community: "Clark can't be trusted."
On Jan. 12, one of the nation's most distinguished Jewish community newspapers, the New York-based Forward, carried a front-page story zinging Clark for his remarks noting that, "The phrase ‘New York money people" struck unpleasant chords with many pro-Israel activists. They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community, which is known for its significant financial donations to political candidates."
The fact that Jewish leaders and publications are attacking Clark for using the term "New York money people" is ironic, inasmuch as just the week before the furor over Clark's comments arose, the same Forward newspaper, in its own Jan. 5 issue, had a front-page story announcing that pro-Israel stalwart U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Had lined up significant financial support for his own forth coming presidential campaign from those whom - in its own headline - Forward called "New York money men."
In that revealing article, describing McCain's "heavily Jewish finance committee," Forward announced that, in recent weeks, "McCain has been signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda as his campaign moves forward." The Jewish newspaper did not mention whether McCain will direct any attention to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu issues - or any other issues of concern to other religious groups. The article in Forward made it clear that support from these "New York money men" is critical in the forthcoming presidential campaign and that it could be pivotal whether that money stays in McCain's camp or ultimately goes elsewhere.
This information could prove a surprise to grass-roots Republicans all over America who think (apparently incorrectly) that they are the ones who actually pick their party's presidential nominee.
In addition, in light of the fact that Jewish groups have attacked Clark for suggesting that "New York money people" were pressuring political candidates to push for war against Iran, it is interesting to note that Forward pointed out that one of the key "New York money men" supporting McCain cited the issue of Iran as one of the reasons why he was boosting the Arizona senator.
Dr. Ben Chouake, who is president of the pro-Israel NORPAC, a political action committee, and a member of McCain's finance committee, was cited as having remarked that Iran is "an immense threat to the United States, and this is an immense threat to Israel," and that "the person that is an the most capable, most experienced, most courageous to defend our country, would be John McCain."
Clearly, the "New York money people" are playing
a major part in the American political arena, throwing their weight
behind who gets elected - and who doesn't - and whether or not
America goes to war. That's something that Americans need to know
about, but they have better not count on the mass media to tell
them about it.
|Top|
This news article is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced here,
but it can be read on the Internet at: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070114_bush.htm
|Top|
