January 7&14, 2008
January 21, 2008
January 28, 2008
Democrat s will try to rush more immigrants, legal and illegal, into citizenship in time for the 2008 elections, as they have in the past, because they can and have affected election outcomes. More than 90% of immigrants from Latin America vote Democratic, immigrant advocacy groups boast.
Just days after the 2006 elections, immigration advocates held press conferences to celebrate claims that immigrant voters decided elections in several states. They boasted that the immigrant vote was the deciding factor in defeating Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), a strong supporter of border control. They claimed 9,000 Hispanic votes for Democrat Jim Webb, who won by only a handful of votes.
The trend began in 1996, when President Bill Clinton demanded that naturalization be speeded up. In fiscal 1995, which ended in October in time for the November voting, there were 488,000 naturalizations. In 1996, the number more than doubled to 1,045,000—a 114% increase. After the election, the number dropped back to 598,000 in 1997 and 463,000 in 1998.
An audit of the 1996 naturalization campaign found that 250,000 applicants were naturalized by short-circuiting background checks. Of those, 75,000 had arrest records and another 60,000 were naturalized with no fingerprint checks at all. It is a matter of mathematical certainty that some terrorists became citizens. Some politicians chose to prostitute U.S. citizenship in exchange for votes. Is there any other possible explanation for their anti-American behavior?
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, listed Democratic rejections of immigration reform. In the past two years, he said, an overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against almost every piece of legislation intended to reduce illegal immigration:
• 80% rejected enhanced border security and increased enforcement of laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. The proposed bill required the use of a basic pilot program, which helps employers determine whether their employees are legal.
• 74% rejected national security standards for drivers licenses to prevent alien terrorists from obtaining identification documents. The Real ID Act was intended to keep out and remove alien terrorists from this country.
• 63% opposed strengthening border security by constructing reinforced fences along the Mexico border. Senate Democrats also have refused to reduce illegal immigration. For example:
• 75% rejected enforcing immigration laws before beginning the legalization process for up to 20 million criminal aliens already in this country. In opposing the Coburn Amendment, Democrats spat upon the voters overwhelming (69%) call for immigration enforcement.
• 86% said no to increasing the number of detention beds, allowing for the confinement of illegal aliens to ensure their appearance for immigration hearings. At present, most arrested suspects simply fade into the streets and never appear.
• 84% opposed funding 800 more immigration investigators.
AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.
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|
Is the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minster Benazhir Bhutto—whose Pakistan People's Party was considered a shoe-in during the upcoming elections—yet another piece in the neocon puzzle aimed at further de-stabilizing the Islamic world and furthering the goal of perpetual war in the Middle East for Israel's benefit?
Pakistan was immediately thrown into turmoil over the news of her death. The people were already incensed with President Pervez Musharraf, who was seen as a puppet for American and Zionist interests. They blamed him for her death and named him the prime suspect.
Bhutto returned from an eight-year, self-imposed exile at the insistence of American operatives including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The bait in bringing her back to her native Pakistan was the elimination of corruption charges she was facing as well as assuring her a prominent place in an upcoming new Pakistani government.
With Musharraf's unpopularity and the risk that the West would lose control over Pakistan, Bhutto's return could douse the fires of a popular revolution as occurred in 1979 Iran. The main theme of her platform was "bringing democracy" and "fighting Islamic extremism" and in general making Pakistan a country cooperative with Western demands through her Pakistan People's Party.
It is too early to assume this assassination is yet another false flag operation. But there are several items that can lead people to conclude her death at the hands of yet another "lone gunman" is all part of a bigger plan in furthering the neocon agenda in the Middle East.
De-stabilization of Islamic countries is the name of the game when it comes to the neocon agenda. Israeli oriented think tanks, groups and papers written such as "Clean-Break" and The New American Century speak openly of creating chaos in the region for the purpose of keeping Islamic countries divided and weak.
Pakistan, the lone Islamic country possessing nuclear weapons, is no exception. Like Iran and other Middle Eastern nations, Pakistan has remained recalcitrant toward normalizing relations with Israel and despite the relatively cooperative disposition of President Pervez Musharraf towards America, Pakistan still holds tight to the notion of her own sovereignty.
In addition, Pakistan—like Iraq—shares a long border with Iran that can be used as a forward base in any military attack on Iran, which has definitely not been taken off the neocon schedule.
Other items associated with the assassination raise suspicions among individuals aware of Zionism's aims in the Middle East, not the least of which is the immediate pinning of this act on Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.
Before the ambulance sirens had even died down, the sirens of the Zionist-dominated Western media were screeching out the standard mantra as if no other possibilities existed.
Next in terms of suspicious timing are the various news stories and op-eds preceding the assassination itself. Exactly one day before her death, a story appearing in the Washington Post entitled "U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan" reads in part:
"Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counterinsurgency forces and clandestine counter-terrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning."
Other stories appearing—interestingly enough—during the period of Bhutto's campaigning and mega-media coverage, raised questions about the "safety" of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, said to number at least 70. In an op-ed piece appearing in the New York Times entitled "Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem" arch neocons Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute engage in the usual business of Zionist fear-mongering by warning that Pakistan's security situation is dangerously precarious and that without a substantial presence of American troops there Pakistan's nuclear arsenal will inevitably fall into the hands of "Islamists."
Not trusting Pakistan's security services, Bhutto sought protection from Israel's Mossad and the CIA and warned that were she ever assassinated President Musharraf would be the "prime suspect." In a recent interview with British television, she said Osama bin Laden is dead. The day after her assassination, SITE, a "monitoring service" run by two individuals closely tied with Israel's Mossad (one of whom, Rita Katz, was herself an Israeli intelligence officer whose father was executed decades ago in Iraq for being an "Israeli spy") released a new "bin Laden" video that somehow the best intelligence agencies in America could not seem to acquire with as much ease.
Bush & Co. would face problems if bin Laden's death became common knowledge. The reason for the war would be lost and all those videos would be exposed as fraud.
Bhutto made statements just prior to her death that no doubt the powers-that-be found unacceptable in terms of the problems they portended in the future. In a recent piece she authored entitled "A False Choice for Pakistan," Bhutto blamed terrorism on the policies of the United States, saying "When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation—namely, life, liberty and justice for all.… Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism."
In the last speech before her death, she said the insertion of NATO troops into Pakistan was unacceptable.
"Why should foreign troops come in? We can take care of this, I can take care of this, you can take care of this."
People arguing that she was murdered because of her intransigence to American and Israeli interests have plenty of circumstantial evidence.
A former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn spoke at the AFP-TBR conference on the Middle East panel. He is a prolific writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and his wife Vicki and their eight children maintain a ranch in northern Idaho. His book, No Beauty in the Beast, can be ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB (1-877-773-9077) for $28 ppd.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
For 10 years, as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee supported amnesty and taxpayer-financed welfare and health care for illegal aliens and increased taxes numerous times. Now, after sniffing the political winds, he poses as tough on illegal aliens and a tax-whacker.
His recent conversion has inspired many evangelical Christians to flock to his support, as they did to President Jimmy Carter in 1976—with disastrous results. Many are unaware that Huckabee's record betrays his new-found words.
As a born-again, ordained Southern Baptist minister, it would behoove Huckabee to explain his late life conversion to his sheep, who see him as their shepherd. If elected, will Huckabee stick to his present position or revert to coddling criminal aliens and raising taxes?
It is common for promises made in presidential campaigns to be broken once the office is won. President Bush the Elder promised, "Read my lips: no new taxes" in the 1988 campaign and raised taxes as president. President Bill Clinton ran as a "peace" candidate and ordered the invasion of Serbia, Kosovo, Haiti and Somalia. Truth is more easily found in records than in words.
To deny illegal aliens tax-paid welfare and health care, plus
low in-state college tuition rates, would not be "Christian,"
Huckabee said many times,.
The Arkansas Journal blog has uncovered a video showing Huckabee
begging the state legislature to raise taxes. He says:
"Some have suggested [increasing the tax on tobacco at the retail level]. If that ends up being your preference, I will accept that. Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax; that's acceptable; I'm fine with that.
"Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that's fine. Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from any one or a combination of these various ideas, and if that's the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks."
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|
Ron Paul is rocking the Establishment's boat by inspiring many a cynical common citizen - young and old, well-off and poor, liberal and conservative - to adopt a renewed sense of purpose and find hope in the political process. Here is an intelligent man with a modest demeanor who shuns glory for himself but seeks a return to greatness for America.
This striking rarity naturally opens minds and wallets, as evidenced by the Texas congressman's smashing fund-raising day on Nov. 5, 2007, when he raised $4.2 million, setting an all-time record for presidential primary fund-raising in a single day. Not one to take undue credit, Paul smiled and said he didn't raise a penny. His supporters did it all, he said. Which is true. And rather amazing.
All this has forced the corporate media - those sentries scouring the horizon for anything Wall Street insiders and their syndicate brethren don't like - to take notice. Paul is a man who, completely unlike the current commander in chief, could admit a mistake but who promises to take his marching orders from the Constitution, not from men in high places.
REMEMBER THE CONSTITUTION?
Our all-but-forgotten Constitution, though imperfect, needs to be test-driven sometime this century, having been selectively applied and/or swept aside for so ling that multiple generations of Americans have been denied the experience of living 100% under its concise guidelines for, and limitations of, government.
In other words, Americans have no idea what a truly constitutional country would be like. Since it's premised on human nature being an untrustworthy trustee for something as dangerous as unconfined political power, the Constitution narrowly specifies what the federal government can do. Federal power is checked, with the rest left to the states and the people therein. We live in a nation where the idea of living in complete accordance with our national charter is not only disliked in some quarters but is actually considered revolutionary.
This is monumentally ironic - considering that public officials at all levels and military officers at all levels take an oath to uphold and defend it. Uphold means to practice it. All of it. The Constitution was crafted for the protection of the people.
‘THE DOCTOR'S PRESCRIPTION
Dr. Paul's presidency would give us a vital supplement of constitutional medicine. Perfect results would not come overnight or all at once. But the body politic, receiving regular doses of the serum, would heal from the nightmarish "disease" of an absolute-debt monetary system; endless, unwinnable, undeclared wars that stain foreign lands with our children's blood paid as tribute to the world's entrenched plutocratic elite; a monstrous entitlement system with growing obligations and shrinking revenues; the vicious ruination of our once robust manufacturing base that explains much of those shrinking revenues; border security that's little better than a screen door on a submarine; and on and on, one painful reality after another.
Indeed this Republican statesman now pursuing the presidency apparently would by the first person since perhaps Andrew Jackson, maybe even since James Madison, to attempt to serve the presidency in a wholly constitutional manner. Even those who may disagree with Paul on particular issues would do well to reflect on this profound possibility: A vote for Paul could lead to an American that Americans have never seen - a nation fundamentally different from the one we're now incarcerated in. The creative energy that could be released by hefty federal spending reductions, the retirement of scores of needless regulations, the retirement of scores of needless regulations and the elimination of the income tax - we're talking BIG cuts, not mere reductions in the rate of growth disguised as cuts - would be almost surreal in its magnitude. Imagine nixing NAFTA and restoring U.S. manufacturing. Imagine the savings in blood and treasure from not policing the world. Imagine stopping the federal march toward warrantless wiretaps and a national ID. Imagine keeping the money you earn and saving instead of borrowing.
It would be supremely delicious to witness the knitted brows of those breathtakingly "wise," well-connected managers of America's future - who heavily populate government, the big media, the big banks, the major tax exempt foundations, academia, law etc - when faced with such an intrepid "infidel" to their corporate state who preaches fidelity to America's founding principles. It could not get better than that.
One can imagine their feverish stammering: "O-obey the C-constitution? A-abolish the IRS and the CIA? Pull the plug on the F-f-federal reserve? Is this g-g-guy k-k-kidding?
There shock would stem from the immovable fact that Paul's ideas are literal blasphemy to the Wall Street-One Worlder crowd in the public and private sectors that tells itself that cornering the market on money and power automatically makes them "smart enough" to run the world. Don't even try to comprehend such towering arrogance. Those with gilded surnames see themselves as the "philosopher kings" conceived by Plato - councils of "wise men" who will not soil their hands with quaint notions of fair democratic governance, preferring to rule autocratically with an iron fist behind their back.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Especially after his Nov. 5 fund-raising record, Dr. Paul received growing media coverage. The likeable, mild-mannered country doctor with a gift for statesmanship has been on the Jay Leno Show and the NBC Nightly News, on various Fox News venues, MSNBC and elsewhere. His Internet presence is unmatched among the candidates and his comments are clear, interesting and unrehearsed.
Therefore, "Mr. And Mrs. John Q. Public" are finally becoming familiar with the Pittsburgh, Penn., native and former Air Force flight surgeon who decided at some point that he could no longer ignore the need to serve in Washington when nearly all others were going there to be served, not to serve. We can all be glad he ventured to Congress, where he has served with such distinction that people from around the nation, convinced their own representative in congress is either a clueless nerd or a bought-off functionary, adopted "Dr. No" as their own. This moniker stems from his irrepressible ability to break with servile fellow Republicans and just say no to unwise, wasteful, unconstitutional legislation.
Looking at the big picture, Paul's general "freedom principles,"
as listed on his congressional website, which appeal to a wide
range of conservatives, libertarians, some liberals and independents,
are:
*Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
*Property should be owned by people, not government.
*All voluntary associations should be permissible - economic and
social.
*The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of
the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
*Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth
or to grant special privileges.
*The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility,
not the government's.
Notably, judging from the statements made by the Democratic and Republican candidates on the nationally televised debates, Paul actually is the only candidate who understands that before Roe v. Wade, the separate states handled such matters and were free to outlaw abortion. That infamous 1973 U.S. supreme Court decision, where a legislating court read things into the Constitution rather than simply reading it, centralized the issue by knocking sown state laws that outlawed abortion. Dr. Paul said he would simply de-federalize the issue, allowing the states to act. The likely outcome would be a drastic decrease in abortions. There may be other ways to handle this issue. But Dr. Paul has made himself clear that on this and several other issues, the federal government needs to be either farless active or inactive. The big media and many Americans do not seem to comprehend that not everything is a federal matter. Announcing and clarifying this essential point is one of Dr. Paul's most important contributions to the current political discourse.
PAUL THE ‘COMMENTATOR'
As this AFP reporter noted in a recent Dallas speech, Dr. Paul, by running on the Republican ticket and therefore getting a platform he otherwise would not have, is akin to a freelance news commentator discussing "forbidden" topics. He's one of the few congressmen who writes a column, which he has done for many years. So, he's already an established commentator. But something's vastly different now. Since his primary fund-raising record on Nor.5 established him as a big-money candidate and got the attention of the media and the masses, we now have a constitutional commentator who's allowed to say what regular news commentators are not allowed to say - and he is saying it to millions of people!
Thus, the Paul campaign - which is uniting a growing mass of Americans under the rediscovered value of the Constitution - is a perfect example of what happens when large numbers of people finally, I repeat finally, get to hear information that is normally restricted - covering key issues like the Iraq War and foreign policy in general. But the real kicker is that these millions of people, for the first time ever, are hearing "heretical" thing like Abolish the Federal Reserve! Abolish the income tax! Stop foreign intervention! The effect is amazing. After a recent debate in Dearborn, Michigan, Dr. Paul visited the University of Michigan for a quick campaign appearance and was greeted by 5,000 people. He has won most of the state straw polls and has dominated the live Internet polls and has dominated the live Internet polls right after the national TV debates. He raised just over $5 million in the quarter ending Sept. 30, which puts the $4.2 million raised in a single day in stunning perspective. He was going for $12 million-plus in the final quarter of 2007 as this special report has prepared. On December 16, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party of 1773, more than $6 million more was raised.
LIFE OF THE PARTIES
Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for president, has endorsed Dr. Paul's presidential bid. Meanwhile, the Constitution Party, overall, is complimentary of, and enthusiastic about, Paul's campaign, though that party is waiting to see if Paul wins the GOP nomination before deciding whether to back him full bore.
"My short-term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008," Badnarik said at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a pro-liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project. He spoke about how our Founding Fathers knew, when they signed the Declaration of Independence, "that they were signing their own death warrants." He asked the audience how many people would be willing to do the same, and nearly everyone raised their hands.
"If we had one last chance to restore liberty without
bloodshed, how many of us would jump at the chance?" Badnarik
asked. "That is why I'm asking you to dedicate your lives,
your fortunes, and your sacred homor to Ron Paul's campaign, because
this may be our second to last option, and none of us want to
go to the point where we face the last option."
|Top|
The following material is taken from the presidential campaign website of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) found at www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/. This material is being reproduced here as a service to the public to advise citizens and potential voters about Congressman Paul's view on the issues.
DEBT AND TAXES
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother's payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to "we the people."
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It's called the Constitution of the United States.
WAR & FOREIGN POLICY
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we're paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
LIFE & LIBERTY
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control."
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I've delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.
I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:
* H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform
Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
* H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National
Park System, restoring Americans' ability to protect themselves
in potentially hazardous situations.
* H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement
personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers,
possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
* H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting
us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.
In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called "assault weapons" ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.
I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.
You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Our nation's promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.
Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.
The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.
Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors' income and raise their standard of living.
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.
EDUCATION
The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.
I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.
To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.
Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.
I have also introduced legislation to help families cope with the out-of-control costs of higher education. H.R. 193, the Make College Affordable Act, creates a full tax deduction for undergraduate college tuition, reasonable living expenses, and interest on qualified student loans.
Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly.
BORDER SECURITY/IMMIGRATION REFORM
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do
whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we
undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders
and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates
U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number
of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are
in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for
breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants
who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers
should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics,
schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know
their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter
the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent
and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60
million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage
Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries
should face the same rules and waiting periods.
PRIVACY & PERSONAL LIBERTY
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver's licenses embedded with "standard identifier" data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we're heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.
To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.
We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you're vulnerable. Under so-called "medical privacy protection" rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.
Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury.
And then there's the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:
* Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps
without judicial oversight;
* Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given
location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
* Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet
usage;
* Authorized "sneak and peek" warrants enabling federal
authorities to search a person's home, office, or personal property
without that person's knowledge; and
* Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books
read by their patrons.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
PROPERTY RIGHTS/EMINENT DOMAIN
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying "just compensation."
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
HEALTH FREEDOM
Americans are justifiably concerned over the government's escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.
I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.
I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.
I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.
I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements
I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.
HOME SCHOOLING
Americans are justifiably concerned over the government's escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.
I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.
I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.
I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.
I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements
I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.
HOME SCHOOLING
My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.
Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children's education.
I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment.
We must have permanency in the Department of Defense Home School Tier 1 Pilot Program, providing recruitment status parity for home school graduates. I will use my authority to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home school activities.
I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers' rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).
Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation.
HEALTH CARE
The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster.
Few people realize that Congress forced Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) on us. HMOs rose to prominence through federal legislation, incentives, and coercion.
Now, the Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines. Regulations from D.C. make it virtually impossible for small business owners to cover their employees. The unemployed often cannot afford insurance, meaning those who need basic medical attention overcrowd emergency rooms and drive up premiums.
The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.
Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.
It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses
from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance
companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account
(HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain
a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses
can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and
lower costs.
By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.
RACISM
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as
an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality.
This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal
pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until
we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms
of individual liberty.
|Top|
A speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - wherein he blasted the inherently racist nature of Zionism and the bloodbath this ideology has perpetrated against the innocent people of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan - is now being viewed by thousands worldwide.
The Iranian leader made the speech for a handful of people associated with American Free Press and the No More wars for Israel Conference in California.
Most people would ask why someone as important Ahmadinejad - who makes headline news across the world oon a daily basis - would take time to record such a speech for a small group of people. But thanks to the miracle of the Internet, his speech is being viewed by thousands of people around the world every hour.
Recognizing that the nation of Iran was clearly in the gun sights of the neocons, the organizers of the conference thought the Iranian president should have the opportunity to speak to Americans directly, without having his remarks edited and twisted in the Zionist controlled world news media.
Ahmadinejad, invited to appear in person, videotaped his speech.
"The Almighty did not create man to live in war, hostility and vengeance... He did not make man to spend his time in hardship, exile, deprivation, enmity and antagonism such as are prevalent in our era," he said. "Hod created man to live in this world in a friendly, intimate atmosphere, an atmosphere of love based on monotheism and justice. He created man to establish by means of his own will and by guidance of the Almighty a prosperous, creative and ideal society.
"However, down through history, despite the missions and guidance of the prophets and despite the endeavors of reformers and sympathizers, there have been the evildoers. These egocentric, avaricious and hostile characters have stood against righteous men and against the message of friendship and love in order to distort man's understanding of the facts and tempt him to indulge in selfishness and evil desires. They want humanity to deviate from the right path. They want to smother man's finer instincts and prevent the realization of good will.
"We have seen numerous clues throughout history that point to the presence, domination and performance of these groups in human society. Today, human society still suffers from such individuals and governments, those who cannot be satisfied with their own portions alone, but who can only visualize prosperity through the deprivation and destitution of others. They see their own advancement through the backwardness and impoverishment of others. In order to progress, they strive to rule other nations and by sowing seeds of discord among them, consolidate their own domination.
"The best example of such is the racist, Zionist regime. The Zionist regime is by origin a fabrication. It is a racist regime for the sole benefit of a certain number of people who totally lack origins or roots in the land of Palestine. They are devoid of any legal, national or identity bonds with the Palestinian land. The regime has defined for itself special unique rights which cannot be adjusted. They are attempting to maintain their illegitimate interest and those of their supporters via massacre and violation of the rights of the Palestinian people on a daily basis. Through sedition and deceit they have attempted to brainwash the people of the United States and Europe. They are an incredibly sophisticated party of political racists. In fact, they are an anti-human party, a party that in principle refuses to take into consideration the welfare, happiness and hope of nations.
"Watch their behavior - they don't believe in any religion. When among Christians, they don Christians in order to dupe the Christian community, thereby gaining control of their societies, and then they do the same when among the Jewish community. They use Judaism to portray themselves as innocent to gain control of the Jewish community. Thus, they pave the way to violate the rights of other nations. They don't believe in any faith. Essentially, they don't believe in any values, either human or divine. They look after their own interests. They pursue power and control over the main global centers. They have committed grave crimes for the past 80 to 100 years, and it is almost impossible to find any contemporary war in which they have not played a major instigating part...."
The opening remarks from the "Hitler of Iran" (as Ahmadinejad is portrayed in the Zionist press) reference Jesus, the Messiah, whom all Muslims expect will return at the end of time for the defeat of evil. This is obviously a huge departure from the propaganda that gullible American Christians are fed by hatemongers on a regular basis concerning the "inherently anti-Christian" nature of Islam.
Unfortunately, during the transmission of the video over the Internet from Iran, the last three minutes of the speech did not arrive. However, based on information relayed by the Iranian media official, at one point in the final three minutes of the speech President Ahmadinejad holds up a copy of American Free Press and announced something to the effect that "If the American media did what this paper does every week in exposing the truth, the American people would not find them selves in the unfortunate position they presently occupy."
Readers can view this historic video by going to http://nomorewarsforisrael.blogspot.com and
clicking on the appropriate heading.
|Top|
There is overwhelming evidence of computer vote fraud in New Hampshire. A small town tax collector has admitted to dumping 31 Ron Paul votes but has excused herself with "It was a mistake."
Town Clerk/Tax Collector Jennifer Call was forced to take her phone off the hook the day following her state's primary in response to the hundreds of phone calls. She did not accept or return AFP calls.
Rep. Paul (R-Tex.) who stands for everything American, is anathema to the New World Order and could set their plans back a century with his proposed destruction of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve banking system. He has long realized that his maltreatment by the press is the norm rather than the exception.
The Faux News snub was the last straw, and when they refused to allow Paul a seat at their New Hampshire debates on January 6, it showed just how far their management will go to deceive the public. The deck is stacked against Paul.
One of the earmarks of computer vote fraud surfaces when all the candidate's percentages remain almost the same throughout the evening as the totals increase. This was reflected in the first hour of TV reporting in New Hampshire on January 8. The purpose of torpedoing Paul at this early stage is to keep his name out of the news. He cannot be allowed to win or even make a strong showing in any of the primaries lest the power structure be jeopardized.
On the Sunday night prior to the Tuesday vote, Paul supporters were in the streets of downtown Manchester when they spotted Faux talking head Sean Hannity inside a restaurant having dinner. They stood on the sidewalk outside the window chanting their familiar "Ron Paul, Ron Paul," until Hannity rose to leave. They greeted him outside and followed him back to his hotel with new, derisive and unprintable chants. Paul had not been allowed to participate in the nationally televised debate but some "anointed" candidates with far less following and fewer Iowa votes the previous week were seated.
Paul finished (officially) with a dismal 8% of the New Hampshire vote, but those aware of the computer operator's ability to defraud the citizens of honest returns were skeptical. Jim Condit of Ohio has exposed vote fraud for 15 years. Condit pointed out some interesting discrepancies.
For instance, how can Paul be near the top in every straw vote and No. 1 in most of them, yet (officially) finish with but 10% in Iowa and 8% in New Hampshire? In a poll from the "Primary New Hampshire" website, Paul was leading even the eventual "winner" John McCain at noon on voting day: Paul: 26.5%, McCain 26.4%, and Giuliani at 5.9%. But the finish showed Rudy had jumped to 9%, McCain added nearly half again at 38%, while Paul somehow fell back to 8%.
Such a scream from the wilderness could be cast aside as mere "sour grapes" except for the fact that Dr. Paul has scored highly in poll after poll on the Internet and with local straw votes all over the country. His national following is enormous. One New York radio station has him running as high as 60% in recent weeks.
Leonard Seagren, owner of a cigar shop in Portsmouth, N.H., continued his store's 24-year tradition by conducting a matchbook poll the week prior to the vote. Seagren boasts an 80% accuracy rate over the years. Last week's results showed Paul winning with 31% over McCain with 27% and Obama beating Hillary again.
Could all the polls be so far off the mark? It's doubtful, but any speculation is a long way from proving vote fraud. However, this next example leaves the New Hampshire officials with a lot of explaining to do.
There is a little town called Sutton, and 386 people voted there, but not one for Paul, at least not from the official count. However, as of noon the next day, 31 people, after angrily viewing the results in the morning newspaper, had come forward to say publicly that they had voted for Paul.
By mid-afternoon, the echoing uproar was heard nationwide via talk radio, with dozens of callers urging Paul to ask for an investigation of this and other suspect precincts. These would include but not be limited to:
Roxbury (33 votes cast, 2 for Paul), Landaff (91 cast, 3 for Paul), Greenville (144 cast, 0 for Paul), Waterville (71 cast, 1 for Paul) and Easton (52 cast, 3 for Paul).
In addition, AFP has learned that of the 302 voting precincts in New Hampshire, 175 were computer-counted and 127 were hand-counted. However, the 175 machines accounted for 81% of the total vote, while the 127 hand-counted areas handled only 19% of the total vote. Of that 19%, however, Paul's percentage total nearly doubled to 15%.
If this proved to be the case state-wide, Paul actually garnered 15% of the vote rather than 8%. He would have placed third in the balloting and remained a strong contender in the eyes of the nation.
It is apparent that this obvious fraud and suspected fraud elsewhere in the state was not restricted to the Republican Party. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seems to have taken a hit, too. After leading Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) by double digits, Obama went down in defeat in the last hours of the Democratic primary voting.
People deserve the government that they elect, not one foisted upon them. Paul should not give up this revolution, even if the propagandizing media never give him a fair shot. First, he must contest this vote fraud in New Hampshire. Then, if the Republicans continue to reject this grassroots movement—the biggest in decades–and continue to choose from their "anointed" bunch only, then Paul should move his supporters away from the Republican Party and into a newly formed independent party.
More from American Free Press Associate Editor Pat Shannan can be seen at www.patshannan.com
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
While the Pentagon and White House, as well as many in Congress declare the "surge" in Iraq a success, little is said about the fact that as many as 24,000 Iraqi civilians died in 2007, representing the second highest casualty figure since the invasion in 2003.
Most of the dead were from areas outside of the capital, Baghdad, where the surge has been concentrated, obscuring a drastic increase in violence in other parts of the country. While the surge has reduced high levels of sectarian deaths in the capital, there is a drastic increase in killings elsewhere.
The problem with representing the surge as a major success is that the overall picture of life in the country is obscured and the level of human tragedy minimized.
In comparing last year's death toll with that of 9-11, Iraqi civilian casualties in 2007 were 800% higher. That does not include civilians injured and maimed for life, or the dead and wounded within the ranks of the U.S. military and its coalition partners. In 2007, there were close to 900 U.S. military deaths and 5,648 wounded. Forty-seven British soldiers were killed. Those figures hid another statistic: the number of soldiers evacuated from Iraq for treatment related to behavioral and psychiatric issues.
Some reports suggested that close to 1,000 soldiers from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at the Army medical facilities at Landsthul in Germany. Most were from Iraq and fell into the category of victims of "mental trauma."
The undeniable success of the troop surge in lowering U.S. casualties and reducing the chaos in Baghdad obscured another troubling aspect of the Iraq campaign in 2007: the U.S. military and "contractor" personnel killed over 600 civilians between June and November.
Among the dead were women and children. Twenty three children were killed by U.S. fire in October alone. In a U.S. raid near Lake Thar Thar, north of Tikrit, the birthplace of the late Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, 15 women and children died. One of the women was pregnant. When it comes to compensating the relatives of victims of what is euphemistically defined as "collateral damage in the war on terror," the Pentagon and wealthy companies running private armies of "contractors" have been penny pinching.
Approximately $8,000 was paid by the Pentagon to two children who lost their mother when the taxi in which she was traveling came under fire. The vehicle was said to have run a checkpoint. The children were alongside their mother when she died and were also injured. A measly "condolence" payment of $500 was paid to the family of a deaf man shot outside a museum in Samarra and a larger condolence payment of $2,500 was granted to the parents of a 4-year-old girl who died when a bullet fired from a Humvee struck her.
In what the U.S. military said "negligent fire," an Iraqi ambulance driver was shot dead on his way to a bomb scene by a coalition soldier. The dead man's family was paid $2,500.
The most reliable figures for the death toll in Iraq are kept by Iraq Body Count (IBC), a non-profit agency that compiles its data from media reports that are authenticated, as well as hospital and morgue records, and material supplied by NGO's and official Iraqi organizations. IBC never offers estimates of the numbers killed at any given time and reports only violent civilian deaths.
The agency was established by volunteers from Britain and the U.S. in 2003 to ensure that the civilian death toll was reflected in coverage of the war, following statements by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that the occupation forces did not keep track of civilian casualties. IBC has not shirked from questioning reports by other sources, like the esteemed medical journal, Lancet, when it declared an estimate of 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. That raised skepticism within the IBC. While it accepted that more deaths occurred than were reported, it argued that the Lancet method of reaching such a high number did not stand up to serious scrutiny.
Nevertheless, IBC reckons that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since 2003. It pays little heed to the much heralded success of the surge by politicians such as presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Instead, it makes the following point: "For some 24,000 Iraqi civilians and their families, 2007 was a year of devastating and irreparable tragedy. The casualty figures show beyond any reasonable doubt that civil security in Iraq remains in a perilous state."
From the perspective of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in charge of the surge, the rosy picture of Iraq presented by politicians on the presidential stump does not exactly square with his reading of the situation. While he stresses the need to build on what was accomplished in 2007, he warns that success cannot be compared to "flipping a light switch." His suggests it would be unwise to think the battle is won and that the mission has been accomplished.
Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former mainstream news producer who now writes for AFP so he can expose the kinds of subjects that he was forbidden to cover in the controlled press.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
PRESIDENT BUSH IS ALLOWING Mexican truckers to roam freely throughout the United States, with sleepy drivers, bad brakes and thin tires, in defiance of a new law passed by Congress.
The decision to proceed with the four-month-old unlimited access program came despite language in a recently passed catch-all bill intended to ban the trucks.
The Department of Transportation is taking advantage of a loophole which provides no enforcement money. So the DOT has taken the position that, if you lack the funds to make us follow the law, we will disobey the law.
Obviously, it costs nothing to tell the Mexicans to stay inside the long-established narrow limits within the U.S. border.
The provision in the law signed by President Bush says: "None of the funds made available under this act may be used to establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico."
"They know what the law says," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who won a 74-24 vote to block the program. "And they're not above the law."
The program rejected by Congress but implemented by Mr. Bush is opposed by labor unions, independent truck owners and environmental groups. It allows 500 trucks from 100 Mexican motor carriers full access to American roads. The trucks could be driven by terrorists and the cargo could include nuclear weapons.
Opponents have been fighting the program since it was proposed as part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing it will erode safety and eliminate U.S. jobs. They argue that insufficient safeguards exist to make sure Mexican trucks are safe.
"When you open up U.S. highways to long-haul Mexican trucks without equivalent safety standards, it poses risks for American drivers and pedestrians," Dorgan said.
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|
After four years of delays, the trial for two accused spies for Israel, Kenneth Weissman and Steve Rosen of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is set for the end of April. The defense - terrified of the public relations disasterr for the Jewish state that will ensue - has employed an incredible amount of obfuscation, sabotage and stalling in trying to scuttle the trial.
New revelations indicate the case involves the theft and sale of secrets dealing with U.S. nuclear weapons.
Sibel Edmonds was a translator of the Turkish and Farsi languages working for the FBI. She was hired after 9-11 and her job was to listen in on conversations garnered after extensive FBI surveillance teams working in counterespionage. After six months, she reported serious breaches of national security taking place relating to what she heard. She was sacked and placed under a secret gag order by the attorney general.
Now, in defiance of those gag orders, she has come forward with explosive information regarding Israeli spying and the stealing of U.S. nuclear secrets with the intention of selling them on the black market. In the British newspaper Sunday Times, Edmonds reveals that an international nuclear smuggling ring involving the intelligence agencies of Israel, Pakistan and Turkey, has been permitted to operate in the U.S. with protection from the government at the highest levels. In addition to the theft and selling of U.S. nuclear secrets, this spy ring was also involved in money laundering, narcotics trafficking, and blackmail of U.S. officials.
The spy ring enlisted the support of (in some cases) high-level U.S. officials in building a network of moles (spies) in sensitive military and nuclear institutions. "What I found was damning," Edmonds said. "While the FBI was investigating, several arms of the government were shielding what was going on." According to the newspaper, the Israelis (working through their Turkish proxies) had planted moles in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology with several transactions of nuclear material talking place every month and the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. "The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States," she said. "The moles were helped," she says, "by a high-ranking State Department official who provided them-mainly PhD students - with security clearances to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities, including the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico."
She said the State Department official also aided foreign operatives personally by "passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives." She also claims that the FBI gathered evidence against senior Pentagon officials - including against senior Pentagon officials - including against some in the Pentagon whoom she said were "household names" - who were aiding these foreign agents saying "If you made public all the information that the FBI has on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials."
Edmond's list includes Marc Grossman, former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2001 to 2005. Arch-neocons Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz were both investigated by the FBI in the past for passing classified information on to Israel during their periods working there.
Following 9-11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks. Again, the State Department official proved useful. "A primary target (of the FBI investigation) would call the State Department official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the U.S. because we can't afford for them to spill the beans,' at which point the official said that he would ‘take care of it'," she said.
In the days and weeks following 9-11, hundreds of Israeli nationals,
many of them known to be agents working for Mossad, were detained
and then quietly deported back to Israel. One of the key players
involved in this was the current director of the Department of
Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, (son of a former Israeli
intelligence agent) who at that time was working with the Criminal
Investigation Division of the Justice Department.
|Top|
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) should run as an independent if denied the Republican presidential nomination, according to Vince Ryan, head of the AFP Readership Council., which has a voice in determining the newspaper's policies on such matters.
"There are two big reasons Paul must stay in the race through the November election," Ryan said. "In a fall campaign that may have several candidates, Paul could win. And in any event, Americans need to hear a lot more from Paul.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent, may finance an independent run for president. Ralph Nader may again be the Green Party candidate. Others may jump in. With votes being thus siphoned from the Democratic and Republican candidates, anything could happen. If other third parties - the Conservative, Constitution and Libertarian parties - united behind Paul, he would have tremendous impact.
"In any event, it is important to the nation that Paul's voice continue to be heard. Americans need an education by Ron Paul," Ryan said.
Another reason, Ryan said, is the traditional third party's role of forcing debate on issues other candidates prefer to ignore. He cited Theodore Roosevelt's candidacy on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912, which split the Republican Party and resulted in the election of Woodrow Wilson and World War I.
Issues advocated by TR scandalized other candidates but become part of the national structure: women's suffrage, old-age pensions, child labor laws, and government regulation of trusts.
Similarly, in 1948, the late sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) forced other candidates to respond to his demand for "state's rights" under the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
No candidate, in either party, wants to discuss bringing American troops home immediately, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but form Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from 114 other "peace missions" scattered around the globe. Paul is the only candidate with courage to state the obvious: the reason the United states is hated in the Middle East is because " we have been bombing them for decades."
Paul rejects the tag "isolationist," explaining that he is a "non-interventionist" in the tradition of George Washington. He supports trade (but not NAFTA or WTO) with other countries and welcomes visitors and legal immigrants. But he would never, by force or otherwise, try to impose American ideals on other nations with different cultures.
Paul would abolish the income tax and the Federal Reserve Board. Most Americans, even some who consider themselves well informed, such as Richard Maybury, who publishes an expensive financial newsletter, believe the Fed is a federal agency when it is actually a privately run national banking system. It would be a great educational service for Paul to air this issue until November.
As an obstetrician, Paul views abortion as the killing of a human being. As a constitutionalist, he believes the matter should be left to individual states. Most states would outlaw abortions. All states have their own murder laws: most allow executions, some not. But despite all the heated debate, there is a glaring ignorance about abortions. For example, many abortion advocates hysterically claim that the gruesome "partial birth" abortion is conducted only if the baby is deformed or the mother's health is at risk. But numerous physicians have testified before Congress that in virtually all cases, the baby was healthy.
On the Second Amendment right to bear arms, millions of Americans and a bunch of congressmen need benefit of Paul's education. Somewhere at this moment, people (including lawyers) are fussing about how the Second Amendment guarantees gun rights only to the police and military because of the reference to "a well-regulated militia."
But boys and girls in law school are taught that you must determine the "original intent" of the Founders in interpreting the Constitution. When a superficial examination of The Federalist Papers shows that in all cases where the spoken and written words have endured, the Founders intended that each individual should have the right to bear arms. Americans should have guns, they said, not just to shoot rabbits or hostile Indians but so that in the event that the government they had created become oppressive, the people would have the means to rise up again, as they had in the American Revolution.
Most Americans today are accustomed to the federal government's heavy hand in state public school systems. It was not until 1962, under President John Kennedy, that Washington became so entangled. Until then, Congress would appropriate a dab of money to a state that had been burdened by some federal encroachment but it was never an annual payoff. With annual federal subsidies came federal control. "The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools," Paul says. "I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states." He strongly supports home schooling, noting that these students perform significantly better than their peers in public school.
Americans have a lot to learn and Paul has a lot to teach.
|Top|
There is overwhelming evidence of computer vote fraud in New Hampshire. A small town tax collector has admitted to dumping 31 Ron Paul votes but has excused herself with "It was a mistake."
Town Clerk/tax Collector Jennifer Call was forced to take her phone off the hook the day following her state's primary in response to the hundreds of phone calls. She did not accept or return AFP calls.
Rep. Paul (R-Tex.) who stands for everything American, is anathema to the New World Order and could set their plans back a century with his proposed destruction of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve banking system. He has long realized that his maltreatment by the press is the norm rather than the exception. The Faux News snub was the last straw, and when they refused to allow Paul a seat at their New Hampshire debates on January 6, it showed just how far their management will go to deceive the public. The deck is stacked against Paul.
One of the earmarks of computer vote fraud surfaces when all the candidate's percentages remain almost the same throughout the evening as the totals increase. This was reflected in the first hour of TV reporting in New Hampshire on January 8. The purpose of torpedoing Paul at this early stage is to keep his name out of the news. He cannot be allowed to win or even make a strong showing in any of the primaries lest the power structure be jeopardized.
On the Sunday night prior to the Tuesday vote, Paul supporters were in the streets of downtown Manchester when they spotted Faux talking head Sean Hannity inside a restaurant having dinner. They stood on the sidewalk outside the window chanting their familiar "Ron Paul, Ron Paul," until Hannity rose to leave. They greeted him outside and followed him back to his hotel with new, derisive and unprintable chants.
Paul had not been allowed to participate in the nationally televised debate but some "anointed" candidates with far less following and fewer Iowa votes the previous week were seated.
Paul finished (officially) with a dismal 8% of the New Hampshire vote, but those aware of the computer operator's ability to defraud the citizens of honest returns were skeptical. Jim Condit of Ohio has exposed vote fraud for 15 years. Condit pointed out some interesting discrepancies.
For instance, how can Paul be near the top in every straw vote and No. 1 in most of them, yet (officially) finish with but 10% in Iowa and 8% in New Hampshire? In a poll from the "Primary New Hampshire" website, Paul was leading even the eventual "winner" John McCain at noon on voting day: Paul: 26.5%, McCain 26.4%, and Giuliani at 5.9%. But the finish showed Rudy had jumped to 9%, McCain added nearly half again at 38%, while Paul somehow fell back to 8%.
Such a scream form the wilderness could be cast aside as mere "sour grapes" except for the fact that Dr. Paul has scored highly in poll after poll on the Internet and with local straw votes all over the country. His national following is enormous. One New York radio station has him running as high as 60% in recent weeks.
Leonard Seagren, owner of a cigar shop in Portsmouth, N.H., continued his store's 24-year tradition by conducting a matchbook poll the week prior to the vote. Seagren boasts an 80% accuracy rate over the years. Last week's results showed Paul winning with 31% over McCain with 27% and Obama beating Hillary again.
Could all the polls be so far off the mark? It's doubtful, but any speculation is a long way from proving vote fraud. However, this next example leaves the New Hampshire officials with a lot of explaining to do.
There is a little town called Sutton, and 386 people voted there, but not one for Paul, at least not from the official count. However, as of noon the next day, 31 people, after angrily viewing the results in the morning newspaper, had come forward to say publicly that they had voted for Paul.
By mid-afternoon, the echoing uproar was heard nationwide via talk radio, with dozens of callers urging Paul to ask for an investigation of this and other suspect precincts. These would include but not be limited to Roxbury (33 votes cast, 2 for Paul), Landaff (91 cast, 3, for Paul), Greenville (144 cast, 0 for Paul), Waterville (71 cast, 1 for Paul) and Easton (52 cast, 3 for Paul).
In addition, AFP has learned that of the 302 voting precincts in New Hampshire, 175 were computer-counted and127 were hand-counted. However, the 175 machines accounted for 81% of the total vote, while the 127 hand-counted areas handled on 19% of the total vote. Of that 19%, however, Paul's percentage total nearly doubled to 15%.
If this proved to be the case state-wide, Paul actually garnered 15% of the vote rather than 8%. He would have placed third in the balloting and remained a strong contender in the eyes of the nation.
It is apparent that this obvious fraud and suspected fraud elsewhere in the state was not restricted to the Republican Party. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seems to have taken a hit, too. After leading Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) by double digits, Obama went down in defeat in the last hours of the democratic primary voting.
People deserve the government that they elect, not one foisted upon them.
Paul should not give up this revolution, even if the propagandizing
media never give him a fair shot. First, he must contest this
vote fraud in New Hampshire. Then, if the republicans continue
to reject this grassroots movement - the biggest in decades -
and continue to choose from their "anointed" bunch only,
then Paul should move his supporters away from the Republican
Party and into a newly formed independent party.
|Top|
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates government corruption, has released its 2007 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order: includes:
• Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Mrs. Clinton took a lot of heat for blocking the release of her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Mrs. Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the Senate again. And her top campaign contributor Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.
• Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and house ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct of the congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the attorney general to investigate the matter.
• Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Craig was caught by police allegedly attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International airport men's bathroom. Craig reportedly "sent signals" to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed "No!" When asked to produce identification, Craig gave police his U.S. Senate business card and said, according to the officer, "What do you think of that?" The power play didn't work. Craig was arrested and charged. He entered a plea. After pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign, Craig first agreed to quit and then refused.
• Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.). As a member of the senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Military Construction, Miss Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by her husband, Richard blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's Subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Miss Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. She also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows congressmen to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch's investigation into this matter is ongoing.
• Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R). Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered that his office "billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Pamptons...." ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani's former police chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.
• Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.). According to The Associated Press: "Huckabee's career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to this destruction of state computer files on is was out of the governor's office." And what was Huckabee's response" Rather than cooperation with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.
• I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found guilty of four felonies - two counts of perjury, one count of makingg false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice - all serious crimes. President Bush commuted the sentence.
• Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). A "dishonorable mention" last year, Obama moves onto the "ten most wanted" list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Onama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko. In w007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections. It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefitted from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). House Speaker Pelosi who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in the $15 billion Water Resources Development Act. The pet project involved renovation ports in speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment building s near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of his wife's earmark. Earlier in the year, Mrs. Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry her and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, an unprecedented request which was rejected by the Pentagon. And under Mrs. Pelosi's leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down - which protects members in both parties.
• Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Over the last few years, Reid
has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast doubt on
his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics,
and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times,
over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington
to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear away obstacles for
a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times
reported, "Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in
campaign contributions from Whittemore." Whittemore also
hired one of reid's sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then
promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiation
the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called
his father's office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA
permits, a clear conflict of interest.
|Top|
Desperate to keep the Bush-Clinton crime syndicate intact, America's power elite resorted to an old standby on January 8, 2008: vote fraud.
Readers of American Free Press are already aware that not only has candidate Ron Paul been the victim of ballot tampering in New Hampshire, but numerous other sources have confirmed that the scandal also extends to the Democratic side of the aisle.
Specifically, Bilderberg attendee and fixer-extraordinaire Hillary Clinton literally stole the nation's first primary from the forward surging favorite, Barack Obama. Behind by double digits in every conceivable poll (including their own internal audits) while drawing significantly sparser crowds at her rallies, Hillary Clinton still pulled what major television pundits on MSNBC called "one of the most stunning upsets in the history of politics." Others said the results "defied explanation," while Keith Olbermann labeled it a "titanic upset victory" for Mrs. Clinton.
Once again, the culprit in this messy affair was the Diebold optical-scan voting system, which was responsible for tallying (in secret) 81% of all votes cast in New Hampshire. This corrupt outfit—which has an exclusive programming contract for New Hampshire (as well as three other states in New England)—is LHS Associates, run by a man named John Silvestro.
Silvestro has previously admitted to violating Connecticut's security protocols during the 2006 congressional elections, while a documentary, Hacking Democracy, proved that the memory cards in his machines can be "hacked" in less than 10 minutes.
Computer expert Harri Hursti testified before New Hampshire legislators in September 2007 that the Diebold (now called Premier Election Solutions) electronic computer voting machine was extremely vulnerable to tampering.
In 2000 and 2004, GeorgeW. Bush was the obvious benefactor of this illegal practice, while many Americans remember how Pat Buchanan got shafted during the 1996 Arizona Republican primaries, effectively undermining his campaign.
Nothing has changed. While populist Ron Paul's votes were siphoned away in New Hampshire, ultimate insider Hillary Clinton's candidacy was saved from the ashes before it crashed and burned. All she had to do was shed a phony tear for the cameras and now she—similar to her husband in 1992—is the latest "comeback kid."
Josef Stalin was certainly correct: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
Popular author Victor Thorn, along with colleague Lisa Giuliani, was the founder of World Independent News Group which he turned into a multi-media website (www.WingTV.net). Thorn is the author of The New World Order Exposed, The New World Order Illusion, 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Connection to 9-11, 9-11 on Trial, Phantom Flight 93 and Other Astounding 9-11 Mysteries Explored. All are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS and American Free Press.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
British and American generals are at loggerheads about how to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, and their disagreements mirror a fundamental flaw in the way military strategists in both camps define counterinsurgency.
The first signs of discord began after May 2006, when the British were given the task of controlling Helmand Province. The central government of Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, had already shown it could not bring stability to the region and its security forces were regarded by locals as brutal, corrupt and ineffective. As a result, many people supported the Taliban or local warlords.
Helmand mattered a lot to Karzai because he reckoned that eliminating the Taliban there would send a message to rest of the country that they could be defeated.
But Helmand also held a special significance for insurgents because some former Taliban leaders and a lot of its best, young fighters before and after 9-11 were from tribes in the area. Many senior Taliban figures fled to Helmand after the U.S. invasion, following on the heels of the defeat of Taliban leader Mullah Omar and his militias in their stronghold at Kandahar.
The British strategy to defeat the Taliban was based on a long history of fighting insurgencies in British "colonial emergencies" in the 20th century, in places as far away as Kenya, Aden and Cyprus. In more recent times, the British also gained considerable experience in antiterrorism warfare, or what is often called counterinsurgency, by combating the Irish Republican Army for several decades.
Those conflicts provided the British with a wealth of knowledge and important lessons on how to defeat insurgents. First, it is vital to win the hearts and minds of the local population. Second, local elements can be empowered to act as intelligence agents and can be trained and armed to counter the insurgents in their own communities. Any action by an occupying power that alienates the local population is therefore counterproductive because it serves the aims of the insurgents. It can also provide the enemy with ready-made propaganda, or recruits, and possibly both.
In 2006, the 6,000 strong British force quickly set about wooing the local population with promises of reconstruction. British commanders opposed U.S. demands to destroy the poppy crop, which was the only source of revenue for many poor farmers. From a British perspective, it was a negative policy to destroy the crop before creating industry and jobs. The British also criticized the U.S. military's use of heavy air power to support its small bands of Special Forces that operated throughout the country, especially in Helmand.
British commanders felt massive air strikes were killing innocent civilians and making the task of winning over the locals much more difficult. For example, in one incident, 57 civilians were killed, many of them women and children.
In a surprising move in August 2007, a British commander openly called for the removal of U.S. Special Forces from his region. He pointed out that because Special Forces teams could not deal with large groups of insurgents they called in airpower that killed civilians.
While that debate pointed to a growing war of words about tactics, other issues quickly added to further tensions between generals. One was secret deals the British negotiated with the Taliban. The deals were called "ceasefire arrangements" by some and "capitulation" by others. They required both sides to pull back from several population centers.
But the biggest disagreement about tactics is the one that is now raging and causing a serious rift at the highest levels of NATO, as well as in the corridors of power in London and Washington. It concerns British plans to train and arm village militias to fight the Taliban. The strategy has the backing of the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, who recently said Britain would expand its plans for "community defense initiatives" in Helmand.
He stressed the policy would be based on the Afghan principle known as the "arbakai" system, a tradition in part of the country whereby local militias banded together to confront a threat to their communities. It is clear the British favor exploiting this tradition because they successfully employed similar tactics in Kenya and Aden.
Later, the U.S. used the Hmong tribes in much the same way during the Vietnam War. From a British perspective, arming Afghan militias could create a counterinsurgency force with vital local knowledge. British generals argue it is necessary because the Afghan police force is outgunned, corrupt and thin on the ground.
American generals say the British will seriously undermine their efforts to retrain and rebuild the police force. They also point out that armed militias could end up being controlled by corrupt warlords. In a sign that tensions within NATO have reached boiling point, the U.S. general in charge of restructuring the police, Maj. Gen. Robert Cone, has openly criticized his British counterparts.
The result has been heated exchanges between diplomats in London and Washington. Cone and his command believe the British plan is too much like their disastrous effort to create an Afghan auxiliary force, a project that was abandoned in 2007.
Cone is not alone in condemning the British move. The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Dan Neill, has told reporters the British strategy will fail. He said his knowledge of Afghan history indicated that the arbakai community militia system worked in only a few areas of the country, and Helmand was not one of them.
His comments represented a stern put-down of his British counterparts. And, as if to rub more salt into the wound, Cone added that the $7.4 billion the U.S. has set aside to rebuild the police force would eventually create a force that was highly trained—a force of which the Afghan people could be proud. He said he backed greater community support and involvement with the police.
Overall, the U.S. top brass see the British strategy undercutting their plans to make the police force the vehicle to defeat the Taliban. And, for its part, the Pentagon is also angry. It feels that, with more than $7 billion earmarked to make the Afghan police force the preferred weapon of choice, the British are putting a monkey-wrench in the works by going off in the opposite direction.
In the midst of this battle of ideas, the Afghan government has weighed in and made it clear it will expel any diplomats who engage in secret talks with insurgents.
To show it was serious, it recently sent packing two EU and UN diplomats after they met with Taliban commanders to talk about conflict resolution.
The debate about arming community groups is not confined to Afghanistan, where some UN observers argue it will undercut efforts to disarm militias through the country. It also has echoes in Iraq, where the U.S., much to the consternation of the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, has been arming and training Sunni insurgents to fight al-Qaeda. Some observers fear those insurgents will one day turn their weapons on Iraqi government forces after the U.S. withdraws.
Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former mainstream news producer who now writes for AFP so he can expose the kinds of subjects that he was forbidden to cover in the controlled press.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
While pressing senators to reject the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST, patriots should also urge rejection of another "convention" sent to the chamber by Bilderberg President Bill Clinton that has been lurking since 1995. If the Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the world body, not parents, will decide how to rear children.
The Senate is likely to get a significant make over in the 2008 election. If your senators are incumbents with a good, America-first record, contact them and warn them of these two treaties. If one or both are new boys, give the man in-depth education. Even senators who are normally on good behavior can cast odd votes. For example, the late Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) was a strong patriot and pork-fighter. But, unexplainably, he advocated ratification of the UN's so-called "genocide treaty."
If the Senate ratifies Rights of the Child, the state. acting under UN direction, will decide what your children read, who they associate with, what discipline (if any) can be imposed and whether or not they can be home schooled (home-schooled children perform significantly better academically than their peers in public schools).
But, regardless of merit or lack thereof, the UN should have no role in rearing America's children. For that matter, Congress has no role in state school systems under the 10th Amendment.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s three decades-old gun laws that contain a strict ban on handguns, setting up one of the biggest Second amendment cases in history. The case is set for arguments in the spring of 2008, and a decision is expected by June.
This returns the high court to a legal question to which it last spoke significantly in1939 - whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the very large section of Law-abiding people who want to protect themselves or only to those who belong to "a well-regulated militia."
Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do these egalitarian word twisters not understand? It is almost as silly as Bill Clinton's declaration that "...it all depends on what the definition of ‘is' is, "but not quite as ridiculous as the previous statute struck down last year that banned all handguns bu permitted ownership of rifles and shotguns as long as they were stored unloaded, disassembled and trigger-locked. ("Please stay tight there and don't harm me, Mr. Burglar," said the groggy homeowner, just awakened from a deep sleep. "I just need a minute or two here to unlock and assemble my weapon that I might shoot you.")
While the case centers on the law in the District of Columbia, it has much broader implications for the rest of the nation. The court will, in essence, be deciding whether the constitutional right to bear firearms is an "individual" right or one that is tied to the broader state interest in maintaining a militia - a faction that in actuality has been discoourage, disparaged and even attacked by the federal government in recent years.
William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation."
Of course. The right to life and property is absolutely worthless without the right and ability to effectively defend yourself against attacks on your person and belongings.
Shelly Parker did everything she could to keep her home safe. She owned a dog. She called D.C. police when she suspected illegal activity on her block. She installed a security camera on her front window.
If her crime-fighting efforts made an impression, it was only on the wrong people. One night, Parker found her car window smashed and saw rocks scattered around the vehicle. She felt it was retaliation for her vigilance.
"That really disturbed me to my core," recalled Parker, who said she often received verbal taunts while walking her malamute, Barney, near her home on the northeastern edge of Capitol Hill.
A police officer gave her the best advice, Parker said, even though it wasn't legal. "Get a gun," he told her.
Fortunately, this issue became a civil suit challenging the law before it became a criminal action against Parker or some other law-abiding citizen for defending body and property.
Parker soon joined five other D.C. residents who took the district government to court in an effort to overturn the city's 31-year-old handgun ban. They won in the lower court, and the U.S. attorney appealed it. Last March, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit again ruled in the Citizen's favor, striking down key elements of the restrictive statute by a 2 to 1 vote. Among other things, the judges said the Second Amendment protects the right of residents to keep loaded guns in their homes.
The lawsuit bearing her name, Parker vs. the District of Columbia made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, after the Court of Appeals upheld it. The gun law is in limbo while proceedings unfold. Some say it is still intact, while others claim itis already repealed, but everyone is ready for the matter to be resolved.
Robert A. Levy, the lawyer who bankrolled the lawsuit, wanted a diverse group of complainants, and Parker, a 44-year-old software designer, is one of two black female plaintiffs. She said the ban on handguns puts neighborhood activists at risk of being subjected to threats and harassment. Having a pistol in her home would level the playing field she said.
Did the Founders know what they were doing when they provided for every farmer and merchant to be lawfully armed, if he or she so chose? Was this not by design to protect the citizen against an unlawful neighbor as well as government intrusion?
In 1981, the city of Morton Grove, Ill. passed the first local statute in modern history to fly in the face of the Second Amendment by banning all guns in that city. The news made a few headlines but not nearly as big as those made shortly thereafter when the mayor of Kennesaw, Ga. Called for an emergency meeting of the city council, which then immediately passed a city ordinance requiring every household to have a firearm on the premises.
The story got hoots of derision from the liberal press all over the nation but a year later, as Morton Grove's violent crime soared, Kennesaw's was almost nonexistent.
Over the nest several weeks we will be calling on our legal
analyst Mike Brown to present a seriesof essays on the importance
of the proper application of the Second Amendment, defining just
exactly what the amendment means as opposed to what it has been
distorted to reflect.
|Top|
Foolishly, when the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was released many spectators in the bleachers watching what appeared would be an imminent war with Iran breathed a sigh of relief, and thinking the game was over began packing their bags to go home.
They should have hung around, paying, paying mind to that old saying, "I ain't over till it's over." They failed to consider the fanaticism driving certain players in this game, including the Zionists controlling George Bush and the president himself. Bush and his handlers (both in the U.S. and Israel) being the genuine Armageddonites they are, see themselves as the guys in the white hats fighting an epic battle against the "forces of evil." Rational persons should understand that the release of the NIE will have little effect on them when it comes to doing the Lord's work of wiping out Judea's ancient enemies in Persia.
Some - with unrealistic optimism - may think Bush's continuing rhetoric against Iran is just an act. Wiser heads assume that he plans to make good on all the promises he made to his Zionist overlords prior to his election in 2000.
Bush has been a cauldron since the release of the NIE, seething with embarrassment and humiliation like a boiler ready to blow. He has not relented one iota in his previous position that Iran "was, is and will be" a danger to the world. Rather than trusting the intelligence services whose multibillion-dollar budgets he himself approves he has cast aside the opinions of experts and professionals who are as wedded to their work as Mozart was to his music. It is similar to an obstinate man being told by doctors that the patient does not have a deadly case of appendicitis but rather a simple case of indigestion and the man, listening to the mad voices in his head and the mad voices of his handlers, grabs the scalpel and begins slashing away in an effort to "cure" the patient.
Before the ink had dried on the NIE, Bush's handlers were howling like spoiled, petulant children. This is typical behavior whenever the Jewish state does not get the lollipop or new toy it demands, in this case a genocidal atomic war against Iran. Politicians and military people alike in Israel have since scoffed at the NIE with a mixture of rage and ridicule, have characterized the NIE as either rubbish or else a deliberate maneuver to endanger Israel and have made it clear that if the United States does not go forward with the annihilation of Iran that Israel will do it herself.
Soon after the NIE's release it was announced that Bush was headed to Israel for his first presidential visit. The stated reason for his visit was making peace between the Jewish state and the Palestinian Christians and Muslims. But the more likely reason was for him to get his marching orders from his bosses in Tel Aviv regarding how to reignite the flames of war with Iran.
Before he had even landed, several incidents had taken place, the first being the launching of two Katyusha rockets - said to have come from Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon into northern Israel. The rockets are of course "Iranian" in origin, just like all the supposed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) killing American troops in Iraq. Following was the "clash" between elements of the Iranian navy and three U.S. warships passing through the straits of Hormuz. American news channels depicted five Iranian fast boats - not much larger than an ordinary fishing boat and incapable of carrying anything more than a few personnel - charging the American ships (that could haave cut them to shreds literally within seconds) in a "threatening and provocative" manner. A videotape released by the Navy featured an Iranian radio transmission to the U.S. ships saying, "We are coming to you, and within a few minutes you will explode."
The media made the most of it, striking up the war symphony. Bush used the event to reiterate his position that Iran was a threat to world peace and threatened retaliation if any American ships wer attacked or harassed.
This resembles what took place during the Reagan era. In his second book, The Other Side of Deception, ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovshy detailed how Israel - desperately wanting U.S. military action initiated against Libya - employed what was called "Operation Trojan Horse." At the time, Libya's Muhammar Kaddafi was "the new Hitler" (just as Iran's Ahmadinejad is today) and in the interest of showing who's boss in the Middle East, Israel's intelligence service tricked the Americans into thinking that not only was Libya responsible for past acts of terror but was planning new ones as well. An Israeli team was sent to Libya with a radio transmitter, where fake messages in Arabic containing incriminating material were broadcast to an eaves-dropping United states. Americans, monitoring the chatter and prodded by Mossad, fell for the ploy, resulting in a U.S. strike being launched against Libya with 160 aircraft.
Within a day of the Iranian "incident" and following Iran's denial, the U.S. Navy was backtracking and admitted it did not know who really broadcast the messages. The frequency used to make the threats was an international frequency, easily accessible by laterally anyone, and thus could have originated from any goat in the area, or even from some unknown location on shore.
Before leaving the Jewish state to visit with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait (seeking support for military action against Iran) Bush visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, Israel's "holy of holies" and a "must-see" for all visiting dignitaries. Donning his mandated Jewish skullcap and ignoring the holocaust of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims taking place a few yards away, he wept for Hitler's Jewish past victims and said that, "When evil exists we must resist it," and then later, when talking about the "infamous" World War II German-run prison camps, "lamented that America did not act early enough in preventing the holocaust, saying "We should have bombed Auschwits."
Since Israel set Iran in her sights, it has been a daily, if not hourly mantra - "It is 1938... Iran is the new Germany and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler."
Many would say that Bush in only adhering to the old dictum "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." However, bush's statements are an announcement that Iran must be bombed in order to prevent another Auschwitz. By the end of Bush's visit, Israel was declaring victory, telling the world that bush is on board and that Israel and America are of "one mind" when it comes to war with Iran.
There are still two U.S. carrier groups sitting not far from where the recent "incident" with Iran took place. Well-known journalist Seymour Hersh wrote of inside information he received detailing how a bull's-eye had been spray-painted on a U.S. ship stationed in Qatar immediately across from the Iranian coast and how "the Iranians" had done it. There is at least one Israeli submarine in the Persian Gulf, and given the treasonous theft and transfer to Israel of high-tech information by spy Jonathan Pollard, who can say what kind of advantages Israel has gained in terms of sonar and stealth capabilities over U.S. surface ships? America has fought many wars as a direct or indirect result of "naval incidents," including the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, and the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication that led to Lyndon Johnson's "troop surge" in Vietnam.
And there is Israel's murderous sneak attack on the USS
Liberty, meant to be the catalyst in bringing about Armageddon
for the sake of the Jewish state. Does a leopard change its spots?
|Top|
Former Presidential candidate George McGovern, 85, says the case for impeaching bush is "far stronger" than it was against President Richard Nixon in 1974.
The former South Dakota senator, who ran on a platform advocation withdrawal from Vietnam, lost the 1972 presidential election to Nixon. Nixon subsequently resigned August 9, 1974 amid his looming impeachment following the Watergate scandal. The House Judiciary Committee had recommended impeachment the previous month.
George W. Bush is guilty of "numerous impeachable offenses," McGovern wrote in The Washington Post. These include, he said, the Iraq war, the Guantanamo detentions and the neglect of Hurricane Katrina's victims.
"As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president," McGovern wrote.
He stood clear of calls to impeach Nixon, he said, because of fears tht it would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the man who had beaten him in the 1972 election. Nixon carried 49 states, including South Dakota. But now, he says, his choice is different.
President Bush and vice President Cheney have repeatedly violated the Constitution, he said. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time.
McGovern's list includes "surveillance" in is series of events and issues to support his call for impeachment. As well as the "murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq." McGovern cites the shipping of prisoners from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay and other countries for interrogation in violation of habeas corpus. He also mentions what he terms the "scandalous neglect and mishandling" of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe.
The longtime senator quoted Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, who also has called for W's impeachment.
Two years ago, Mrs Holtzman wrote: "It wasn't until the most recent revelations that President bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - and argued that, as commander in chief, he had the right, in the interests of national security, to override our country's laws - that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate."
Impeachment is unlikely, McGovern said, but congress must still be urged to act. It would be a way to "signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray."
Speaking of both president Bush and vice President Cheney, McGovern said, "Nixon was bad. These guys are worse."
Meanwhile, on January 16 Rep. Bob Wexler (D-Fla.) said in a
floor speech he had 200,000 citizen signatures urging immediate
hearings on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-Ohio) Articles of Impeachment
on vice President Dick Cheney.
|Top|
In 1970 less than 200,000 mentally ill patients wound up in prison in the United States. In 2002 about 1.3 million were incarcerated. A great many unfortunate citizens are getting a one-way ticket to jail instead of being treated for their mental illness in hospitals.
In late 2006 a shortage of facilities for care of mental patients created a crisis which required the state of florida to budget over $70 million for an expansion program. The state is spending $250 million yearly to provide 1,700 beds for inmates with mental illness according to a Florida Supreme Court-sponsored study. According to Dr. Katharine Lyon, director of florida's Mental Health Program Office there is now secure capacity for 1,232 individuals and forensic step-down capacity for 517 individuals. The National alliance on Mental Health suggests that this money would be better spent on keeping the mentally ill out of jail rather than maintaining them in jail.
A couple of centuries ago it was not uncommon in the Western World for the mentally ill to be chained in dungeons and treated like wild animals. Since that time their treatment has tended to be more humane and enlightened. However, there does not seem to have been much consistency from one generation to the next. In America treatments have varied from state to state as well as from time to time. Early last century most of our mental patients were housed in hospitals. Today a great many find themselves in jail.
The transition from hospital to jail started about the middle of last century after Thorazine (chlorpromazine) was developed. This neuroleptic drug appeared to be a perfect solution to a difficult problem. It quickly turned even extremely violent patients into unresisting cooperators. It was welcomed with open arms by psychiatrists, hospital personnel and politicians. They were led to believe that housing the insane was no longer a problem. Mental patients were discharged from the hospitals. Many hospitals went out of business. Unfortunately the closed doors that had been opened turned into revolving doors. The supposedly cured patients did no do well. Many returned again and again for rehospitalization. One psychosis changed into another. Furthermore the neuroleptic drugs caused nervous system changes and about 36% of patients who were given Thorazine developed Parkinson's disease. There were lots of laws to break, and soon more than 10% of the inhabitants of jails were mental patients.
Therapies included in the standards of care for psychiatrists have been turning most of their patients into dependent wards of the state. Only about 10% of American psychiatric patients become fully effective taxpaying citizens. This is not acceptable. Something better is needed. Fortunately something better is available.
About 50 years ago Dr.Abram Hoffer Ph.D., M.D., called the father of orthomolecular psychiatry, and Dr. Humphrey Osmund demonstrated, with a double blind study and long term follow-up, the schizophrenic patients in Canada could be turned into taxpayers. They did this with conventional psychiatric treatment while changing the chemistry of their patient's brains with megavitamin therapy. Their hypothesis was that an abnormal conversion of adrenalin into adrenochrome caused mental illness. Dr. Hoffer's training in biochemistry led him to conclude that niacin (vitamin B-3) might prevent this conversion. His years of successful experience with this protocol indicates that 75% to 85% cure rates are possible with lowered requirements for hospitalization. Large doses of vitamin B-3 have helped his patients become sane - and worked miracles beyond the range of psychiatric drugs. But if this is so good, why isn't every psychiatrist using it?
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association published a report that is said to have used lies and innuendos to discredit the Hoffer-Osmund experimental work and publications. It was very effective. Psychiatrists didn't bother to investigate the original work or read the publications on orthomolecular medicine. As a result they have failed to use a remarkable advancement in the state of the medical arts, which could have benefitted millions of people and saved bullions of dollars.
There is a precedent for using niacin and niacinamide to cure mental patients. In the early 1900s about 10% of patients in some insane asylums were there because they had a disease called pellagra. When they received 14 milligrams of niacin daily, they recovered their mental capabilities and were discharged as cured. Niacin added to bread has kept many people out of mental hospitals since then. (See AFPs Whole Body Health, of December 3&10 for 2007.)
Considering the large potential savings, which appears to be
achievable by inexpensive niacin supplementation, wouldn't it
be insane Not to give it a try? Is it possible that our psychiatrists
need to be reconditioned with education in nutrition in order
to improve their effectiveness? Something needs to be done to
improve their performance, which has been far from satisfactory
over the last 50 years. In addition politicians might want to
consider mandating the addition of more niacin in bread. It is
the basic food of the poor, who are most subject to malnutrition.
Dr. Hoffer believes that this would keep more people sane and
effective and reduce the need for hospital beds and prisons.
|Top|