January 4&11, 2010
- To Fed: No Audit, No Confirmation
- AIPAC's Role in Spying & U.S. Foreign Intervention
- Democrats & Republicans Team Up To Break the Back of the Banksters
- Trilaterals Approve of Obama's Support
for NWO Agenda
Concentration Camps In America - Those Who Favor Torture, Wiretapping Are Brainwashed by Fear
- Cutting Off Trade Deplomacy Not the
Way to Avoid War With Iran by Ron Paul
January 18, 2010
- Washington Will Turn to the Bankers To Finance U.S. Debt; T-Bills in Trouble
- Remember Ariel Sharon's Words
- Mossad Tied to ‘Underwear Bomber'
- Liberals and Conservatives Unite To Oppose Forced Insurance Plan
- Capitol Hill Insiders Shaped Health ‘Reform'
- Woman Punished for 9-11 Beliefs
- Terrorism Designed to Bring About Domestic Tyranny
- Healthcare Reform Is A Lump of Coal for Taxpayers by Ron Paul
January 25, 2010
- Nurse Pulls Plug On Tax Collectors Over MBA Tuition
- Why Weren't Spies Treated Like . . . Me?
- Goldman Sachs Wants You to Pay-by-the-Mile to Drive on U.S. Roadways
- Trumped Up Terror
- Fed Fights Desperately to Keep Wall Street Deals Secret
- Is Your Safe Deposit Box Really Safe?
- Real Purpose of Healthcare Act Is to Erode Constitutional Rights
- Is Man-Made Global Warming Politically Motivated Science?
- It'‘s Obvious Why the Federal Reserve Loves Autonomy by Ron Paul
- Is Anyone Telling Us The Truth About 'Terrorism'?
Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) claimed he will keep the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Board chairman on hold until there is a Senate vote to audit the Federal Reserve, referring to S.604, which is the companion legislation to the House's original "Audit the Fed" bill, HR 1207.
DeMint is an influential member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs—the body that put Bernanke on the hot seat during his recent nomination hearings. That committee, whose jurisdiction includes the Fed's operations, approved Bernanke's second four-year term on the board by a 16-7 vote in an executive session Dec. 17. The day before, Time magazine, a banker-friendly pillar of the establishment media named Bernanke "Person of the Year."
And while the usual suspects in the corporate media expect Bernanke to get the approval of the full Senate for serving another term, DeMint sees things differently. So does Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Ver.).
DeMint recalled that he tried to get a vote on S. 604 as far back as July 6. In a press release, also explained that S. 604, "would remove restrictions on auditing the Fed's discount-window operations, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments. The vote was blocked but I pledged to keep fighting to force the Senate to vote."
But now that the House has pressed an audit-the-Fed amendment to a larger financial regulatory bill known as HR 4173 —and with the full Senate considering whether to confirm Bernanke's second term and whether to approve S. 604 for a Fed. audit—what are the dynamics at this critical juncture?
DeMint "pledged to object to floor consideration of the nomination until the Senate vote on S. 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009." This sounds similar to Sen. Sanders, who introduced S. 604 in the first place and has pledged to block Bernanke's reappointment by the full Senate. Sanders likely will try to "raise the bar" and require 60 votes to confirm Bernanke, rather than a 51- vote simple majority,
Bernanke's first four-year term ends Jan. 31, 2010. A Sanders spokesman told AFP that the full Senate probably will not vote on whether to approve Bernanke's nomination until after Jan. 20, but likely before Jan. 31.
DeMint also has said: "Americans want a new Fed chairman who is willing to provide transparency into the Fed's actions . . . who is willing to support true monetary reform that guarantees the soundness of our money." But "changing the conductor on the train," is not sufficient; derailing the Fed "locomotive" itself is the answer.
"Under Mr. Bernanke's leadership, the Fed has lent several trillion dollars to failing financial institutions that should have been held accountable by market forces,"
DeMint said. "The total amount of these bailouts exceeds the entire annual budget of the U.S. Yet the public has not been given adequate information about these bailouts. In fact, Mr. Bernanke has led the fight against bipartisan legislation in the House and the Senate to require a full audit of the Fed so Americans know what has taken place and what mistakes have been made," DeMint said.
The Senate Banking Committee can be reached at (202) 224-7391; fax (202) 224-5137. Any senator can be reached through the switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the deputy editor for American Free Press. Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events they cover for AFP. Email Mark Anderson with your comments at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
"We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." (Statement of Ariel Sharon, former prime minister of Israel, Oct. 3, 2001.)
Jewish American citizens Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were both "Big Shots" in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) hierarchy. They had one other major common bond. Rosen and Weissman were spies. They spied for Israel. They spied on their own country, America. That is, presuming that America is their true country. I doubt it.
First we had Jonathan Pollard, who plea-bargained his "treason" charge down to a life sentence. If you recall, Israel defiantly denied any association with Pollard. Eventually, however, Israel finally admitted that Pollard was a spy. A spy for Israel.
Now come Rosen and Weissman. In August of 2004, the U.S. Justice Department announced an investigation of a "high Pentagon official, suspected of spying for Israel." The FBI further said they were "investigating this spy apparatus" for several years. The investigation centered around two AIPAC leaders, Rosen and Weissman. Rosen and Weissman were ultimately indicted.
On Aug. 29, 2005, the Israeli embassy "hotly denied any involvement" with the spies.
On that same day, the "top Pentagon official" was publicly named: Larry Franklin. Franklin was named "a spy suspect. "This Franklin had a job to do, folks. Franklin's job was to work closely with Michael Ledeen (a leading neocon) and Douglas Feith. These two guys were not pencil pushers at the Pentagon. Douglas Feith was then the undersecretary of Defense in the Pentagon. Ledeen was an "expert" on "terrorism."
According to the FBI, Franklin was working with Ledeen and Feith to "fabricate" the case for war with Iraq. Bingo! Start using your own mind in distilling this fabrication. It was invented to help Israel and force Uncle Sam to disarm "dangerous" Iraq.
You might also engage your brain and deductive powers a little further with the following information of fact; Larry Franklin, was the senior analyst on Iran. Yes, Iran. Now, think back to the words of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. When asked about the war in Iraq he said: "Iraq is not our problem any more, our problem is Iran."
Am I implying that Kerry would have been favorable to an attack on Iran? Does a bear defecate in the woods? Does a bear sleep in the wilderness? Does a bear love honey? Does he make little teddy bears? Of course he does! I believe Kerry, if elected, would have had America invade Iran. (I could be wrong, but I doubt it.)
Back to the Israeli spy network within the Pentagon. Two senior staffers of Under-Secretary Feith's Office of Special Plans, (OSP), William Luti and Harold Rhode, were now included. This OSP was the entity responsible for "feeding bogus intelligence to U.S. Officials which led to the U.S. attack on Iraq."
Think about it. Was this for Israel's benefit? Certainly it was not for America's. The FBI stated: "This investigation involves wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography that documents the passing of classified information from Franklin to Rosen and Weissman of AIPAC, and on to the Israeli Government."
Hear me. Listen carefully. Top Pentagon officials, all American citizens, pushing the U.S.A. into another needless and illegal war. All predicated on spies and falsehoods. Shame. Shame. Shame!
What makes matters even worse is that this case had the additional goal of pushing America into a "military confrontation with Iran."
IRAN. Iran, folks!
We're not talking about a military like that of Iraq's— one that surrendered to a TV crew. We are talking about Iran, and all the "killing fields" that go with it.
Another trillion dollars folks? More body bags filled with fine young American soldiers? Who would really benefit from all this? You guessed it, Israel. Evidently, Franklin, Rosen and Weissman didn't care. Neither did Ledeen and Feith, nor Luti or Rhode. You see, they made lots of money. They cared nothing for America.
Truth is, the concern of these "Americans" was for the state of Israel.
On Aug. 29, 2004, Franklin confessed to "passing highly classified, confidential documents to a member of the Israeli government." Franklin agreed to "expose his contacts within the Israeli government," said the FBI.
Suddenly, in stepped the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a leading Jewish pro-Israeli lobby. The ADL spokesman, Abe Foxman, called for a special prosecutor to investigate the "leaks in the FBI." (Foxman is still a big shot at the ADL and in the halls of Washington D.C.) Foxman said:
"The FBI is tarnishing the image of Israel!" Think about it, after all this, the ADL and Foxman wanted the FBI busted for "leaks"! Not the spies for betraying America, but the FBI for their "leaks."
Guess what? Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, (useless as teats on a boar hog) tried to "stop" the investigation. Absolutely unbelievable.
The investigation was spreading. New names started to pop up. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Michael Rubin were "interviewed" by the FBI. Rubin, a former pentagon specialist on Iran and a resident "scholar" of the American Enterprise Institute, lashed out stating: "This is a anti-Semitic witch hunt." You probably figured it out. The words "anti-Semite" scared the hell out of many wimp politicians in Washington D.C.
AIPAC immediately launched a political campaign against the U.S. spy probe and openly endorsed and supported the spy's activities and their leaders. As a result, members of Congress in both the House and Senate got the message loud and clear. They rushed like TV evangelists to the defense of AIPAC, and "pledged their support and confidence" for AIPAC.
Beam me up! These men—many were high-ranking government officials—supported a foreign entity that is still spying on America. I ask: "Who the hell do these politicians represent? Is it America?" I don't think so. It looks more like Israel to me.
In December 2004, even after search warrants were served on AIPAC's Washington, D.C., offices, Israel continued to defiantly deny any wrong doing. AIPAC said;
"AIPAC nor any member of our staff, has spied or broken any law." (Haven't we heard this before with Pollard?) A grand jury was convened in early 2005. Franklin's superiors Wolfowitz and Feith suddenly resigned. (Wolfowitz became president of the World Bank. Evidently this spy business did no harm for Wolfowitz's political future.
That is until Wolfowitz was "removed for cause" as president of the World Bank. (Are Jewish Americans given special treatment?) On June 13, 2005, AIPAC was officially "named" in an expanded indictment.
Think back to that ever-important statement: "We, the
Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it"
(statement of Ariel Sharon, former prime minister of Israel,
Oct. 3, 2001). . . .
—
We'll pick up next week with the rest of the story. Suffice it
to say, you'll understand why America is bankrupt, still at war,
and teetering on the edge of a possible implosion. Please get
back at me.
James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a well-known football star. He also received a M.S. degree from Youngstown State University in 1976. For ten years he served as executive director of the Mahoning County (Ohio) Drug Program and from 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, he was expelled from the House of Representatives. Despite his conviction and expulsion and being sent to prison for a seven year term Traficant still won 15% of the vote running for re-election to the House in the 2002 election as an independent. He recently completed a seven-year prison sentence, having refused to seek a pardon or clemency, refusing to admit to or apologize for crimes he did not commit.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
AN UNLIKELY DUO has joined forces to resurrect landmark legislation enacted following the Great Depression that was directed at breaking the back of the money trust. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have teamed up to introduce a bill to restore the Glass-Steagall Act, which was killed in the late 1990s during the Clinton administration, allowing banks to metastasize across state lines into financial behemoths that can sell loans, gamble on Wall Street and hock insurance.
In 1933, following the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933, created the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, which guaranteed deposits in member banks for up to $2,500. More importantly, the key measure prevented so-called bank holding companies—private corporations that own banks—from growing exponentially by branching out into the insurance and investment sectors.
For 60 years, the law held. However, in 1999, at the behest of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and President Bill Clinton, the bipartisan Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed Glass-Steagall, allowing banks to start gambling on Wall Street. What we now know as the shadow lending industry took shape as a result of that bill, taking the shackles off of banks so they could create even more crushing debt.
Legislation introduced on Dec. 15 by Cantwell and McCain, titled the Banking Integrity Act of 2009, would bring back key provisions of Glass-Steagall and bar commercial banks from getting in bed with investment and insurance firms.
In a telling report, the country's leading mouthpiece for New York financials, The Wall Street Journal, remarked that the legislation would put an end to today's megabanks like Citigroup and Bank of America.
Upon introducing the bill, Ms. Cantwell said:
"America can't afford another financial crisis. With big banks using depositor money to gamble on Wall Street, it's only a matter of time.. . .We must return stability, security and confidence to commercial banking for theAmerican public. The first step is this bill."
McCain had this to say about the legislation: "My reasons for joining this effort are simple—I want to ensure that we never stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion—or even larger—tab to bail out the financial industry. If big Wall Street institutions want to take part in risky transactions—fine. But we should not allow them to do so with federally insured deposits."
He added: "It is time to put a stop to the taxpayer-financed excesses of Wall Street. No single financial institution should be so big that its failure would bring ruin to our economy and destroy millions of American jobs. This country would be better served if we limit the activities of these financial institutions."
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
When the Trilateral Commission hunkers down behind closed doors at the elite Four Seasons resort in Dublin, Ireland, May 7-9, These international gangsters will give President barack Obama good grades; he is one of their own and follows orders without question. (Billionaire banker David Rockefeller, who founded the TC in 1973 and, with the Rothschilds of Britain and Europe, founded Bilderberg in 1954, pays no income taxes but receives more than $250,000 from taxpayers every year as a "small farmer.")
Employees and executives of TC-Bilderberg backers Goldman Sachs Group, boeing Co. And Pfizer donated much more money to Obama's campaign than to the Republican ticket in 2008. Goldman Sachs enjoyed a special benefit with alums Timothy Geithner and Rahm Emanuel being named chairman of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve Board and White House chief of staff, respectively. All are TC/Bilderberg boys.
Other Bilderberg/TC boys named to high posts by obama include New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former south Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle. Daschle, former Denate majority leader who lost his election to John Thune (R-S.D.), was forced to withdraw his nomination because of unpaid taxes.
In recent years, major labor unions have been recruited into these groups of international financiers and political leaders that had traditionally snubbed the working man. The result: Big Labor gives big bucks and active support to Obama and the Democrats in direct opposition to their own members' loudly stated objections. In partial payback, Democrats are trying to pass legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, allowing workers to be bullied into voting in favor of organizing. The United Auto workers, to name just one union, spent $13 million to elect Democrats and spent almost $5 million to promote Obama's candidacy.
So, with companies such as General Motors and the auto unions on board, it is clear why such nonsense as "cash for clunkers" could roll through Congress. General Motors is a big taxpayer beneficiary through the misbegotten bail out legislation, but kept its lobbyists highly paid and busy.
General Electric, another TC/Bilderberg biggie, is another tool and fool of Obama. GE's NSNBC has become a propaganda parrot for Obama and any pretense to "objective" news is absurd. Its "news" has the credibility of paid commercials.
All are part of the Bilderberg/TC goal, shared by the obedient president, to surrender U.S. national sovereignty to a world government. Obama is committed to a world court that would be superior to the U.S. Supreme court and to international bureaucracies. Under the Constitution, treaties are superior to domestic laws, which is why George Washington urged such caustion against permanent alliances.
Obama also supports a global tax to "redistribute the
wealth" among industrial and poor "developing"
nations. The favorite Bilderberg/TC tax is on oil at the wellhead,
now pending before the UN. Americans would hardly notice the
tax, at first, when buying gas. But levying a direct tax on people
of the world would be a significant step toward world government.
|Top|
There exists an explosive hot-button issue that U.S. Government officials don't want revealed to the American public: namely, the internment camps have been established - and are at the ready - to detain citizens if mass insurrections occur. Under FEMA's National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09), potential trigger events could be economic collapse, widespread bank closures, massive social unrest (possibly dur to proof that Barack Obama is not American-born), or a flu pandemic.
This final item led Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) to declare on Aug. 11 that the federal government "might use a pandemic disease or national disaster as an excuse to declare martial law."
Renowned researcher Michel Chossudovsky addressed the mechanics of this subject in a March 19 article entitled Preparing for Civil Unrest in America: Legislation to Establish Internment Camps on U.S. Military Bases. "How will the U.S. government face an impending social catastrophe? The chosen avenue, inherited from the outgoing bush administration, is the reinforcement of the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] apparatus and the militarization of civilian state institutions."
Are army bases actually being converted into detainment camps? In his September wppi newsletter, rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) pulled no punches. "Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, the government now wants to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency."
Conservative author and former presidential candidate, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, confirms this notion in an Aug. 11 article, Why Are Internment Camps Bing Built? "I've had military personnel tell me that many of the U.S. Military bases that have been recently ‘closed' are also being prepared as large-scale ‘holding areas.'"
To counteract these charges, some claim the "renovated bases" will simply be used to hold illegal aliens. A recent news item appeared in the Idaho Observer's June issue. "In January 2006, it was revealed that former Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), had received a $385 million contract to build detention facilities ‘for an emergency influx of immigrants.'"
But to argue that their sole focus is simply on illegal immigrants doesn't hold water because the United States has had an open-border policy for at least three decades. On the other hand, more accurate targets for detainment would be anti-New World Order proponents, Second Amendment advocates, dissidents, Christians, tax protesters, and those deemed "extremists" and "enemies of the state" under a recent Department of Homeland Security report on "homegrown right-wing terrorists."
To show their seriousness in pushing this agenda, Bob Unruh revealed a disturbing development on Aug. 7 for World Net Daily. An ad campaign featured on a U.S. Army website seeking those who would be interested in being an ‘internment/resettlement' specialist is raising alarms across the country." What specifically would this position entail? The description is clear. "Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement correctional facility or detention /internment facility."
Legislation introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) under H.R. 645 would have the DHS establishing at least half a dozen national emergency centers for large-scale imprisonment of American citizens on military installations. Further, H.R. 645 would create a Guantanamo-style setting after martial law is declared. At that point, posse comitatus laws would be rendered non-existent, replaced by military jurisdiction over all detainees. As a result, the incarcerated would find it much more difficult to enforce their constitutional rights to a fair trial and/or legal representation.
If Skeptics doubt this scenario, they need to reexamine President Obama's own words in a May 21 speech at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. At this locale, he spoke of "prolonged detention" for all those who posed a threat to United States security. Even members of the liberal media were disconcerted by the implications of this proposal, including MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who questioned the "expectation of future crimes" that seemed implicit in his plan. Maddow had further suspicious about the president's advocacy of an Orwellian Big Brother -world via the use of "preventive incarceration" to keep certain people in prison indefinitely without charge. Finally, similar to the policies of George W. Bush, Obama vowed to "reshape the standards that apply to our rule of law" (i.e. prolonged military detention and the denial of habeas corpus).
Obama and his representatives have unmistakably drawn a line in the sand. The department of Homeland Security even has an "Operation Endgame" which proposes the "removal of all ‘potential terrorists.'" How would such a roundup be accomplished FEMA official Glenn cannon admitted to the Associated Press on Feb. 13,, 2008, that they are "looking at ways to use passenger trains to get elderly and sick people out of harms way during an emergency situation."
But would they conceivably stop at just senior citizens and the infirmed, or is their plan much more sinister? On Feb, 4, 2008, Lewis Seiler and former Congressman dan Hamburg (D-Calif.) provided a chilling scenario for the San Francisco Chronicle. "Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The Government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
Such accounts should ring an alarm bell, especially when we realize that the U.S. has a long history of detaining its own citizens. In 1838, President Martin Van Buren authorized a massive roundup of Cherokee Indians, while Union jails were filled with inmates during the Civil War due to "suspicions of disloyalty." Much worse, President Woodrow Wilson imprisoned over 100,000 Americans during World War I who were deemed political opponents or pacifists. In 1939, the FBI compiled a "Custodial detention Index," whereas FDR signed Executive Order 9066 on Feb. 19, 1942, which led to the incarceration of not only Japanese but German-Americans too.
More recently, on Aug. 20, 2006, Allen Roland of Global Research described Rex-84, on of the most horrifying pieces of legislation ever passed. "Through Rex-84, an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United states for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the State." Closely associated with this action is Operation Gerden Plot, which priest Frank Morales characterizes as "a master plan to suppress democratic opposition in the United States" [it was actually implemented during the 1992 Los Angeles riots]. Finally, Operation Cable Splicer is designed for the orderly takeover of state and local governments" by FEMA and other federal agencies.
Although the government and its mainstream media minions desperately
try to portray this information as merely "conspiracy theory"
- through organs like Popular Mechanics - the above material
is legitimate, and it is very real. History repeats itself, and
if those deemed "radical" in the past were imprisoned,
what prevents our leaders from doing it again (especially when
all the necessary legislation is already in place)?
|Top|
Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Part's 2008 presidential candidate, is a prolific columnist, radio show host, and he is at the forefront of exposing the U.S. internment camp system that has troubled so many citizens.
During an Oct. 28 interview, this writer asked the crux question that skeptics often pose: "If detention centers do exist in America where precisely are they?" Baldwin answered, "Where there's smoke, there's fire, and most of the discernable and identifiable facilities are located on U.S. military bases. It's not hard to find any number of them that could be used."
He then referenced H.R. 645, which was introduced in January 2009 by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). If passed this House bill will give the Department of Homeland security (via Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root) direct authority to create national emergency centers on U.S. military installations. Millions of dollars have already been spent on the construction of these centers, with KBR receiving a $387 million contract. Even more unnerving is the fact that although they're not currently being utilized, personnel are in place to guard them.
To further support this argument, Baldwin next mentioned a retired military colonel who contacted him and spoke matter-of-factly about the reality of these installations. Not only did he not deny their existence, but added that there are times when "displaced people" need to be housed somewhere. According to Baldwin the colonel saw nothing untoward about corralling these "displaced people" on U.S. Army bases.
Considering this information, this writer followed-up by asking who is charged with supervising these programs. Baldwin told me this issue must be viewed on two different levels. First, private contractors such as American Police Force, which rolled into Hardin, Montana, are indeed employed by agencies of the federal government to procure these camps.
Secondly, Baldwin asserts, "there is no controversy that FEMA is the primary agent tasked to take control during a natural catastrophe or national emergency."
To back up this point, he recounted an Aug. 14 town hall address by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) who warned that a pandemic or natural disaster could be used to implement martial law. Baldwin added that not only would this scenario be a possibility, but a probability.
As an example, he recalled Hurricane Katrina and how government officials took advantage of this disaster to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially the Second amendment. At the time, FEMA employees went door-to-door disarming New Oleans residents. "We've already seen the pattern," Baldwin stressed. "They're fully capable of it. They've already formed plans to do it."
He next cited Senate bill 1042 - the National Defense Authorization Act - which President George bush signed into law in October 2006. This act gave U.S. presidents the power to invoke martial law (while overturning posse comitatus) for the first time in over 100 years. In addition, 2007's continuity of government legislation (via the National Security Presidential Directive) further expands federal power during times of national strife.
What alarms Baldwin even more is how ill-equipped most Americans are in the face of catastrophe. "We're very vulnerable, and this vulnerability was created by the same federal government that wants to come in and act as our savior. Through prohibitions, legislation, and for the sake of ‘security' they can take away any liberties in the name of national security."
They've done very little to genuinely prepare us for emergency situations. Fifty years ago, we regularly practiced Civil Defense Drills. But today we have none of that. The government doesn't even provide common sense solutions for storing food or medicine. It's a manipulative contrivance. All of us are deluded into a false sense of security that the government will ride in on its white horse. But guess what? The cavalry isn't coming. In fact, this same cavalry helped create the debacle. Again, look at Hurricane Katrina FEMA officials actually prohibited local and state authorities from doing their rescue work. Even the Coast Guard was stopped. And when emergency personnel tried to assist, they were denied access by DHS and FEMA.
In concluding the interview, Rev. Baldwin added: "If
we ever reach the point where federal officials are rounding
up people at gunpoint, we've entered int a new era of totalitarianism
for our freedoms and constitutional government. We've always
prided ourselves on maintaining the principles and integrity
of our Constitution. So, if the government ever decides to scrap
our constitutional protection and liberties by turning federal
forces against its citizens, we've deteriorated into a totalitarian
state.
|Top|
Although the topic of "martial law" is a frequently increasing subjectamong members of the alternative media, few, if any, have ever directly experienced a state of emergency under near-total anarchy conditions. I have.
Circa 1992, I lived in Los Angeles, and on the afternoon of April 29, 1992 after the Rodney King verdict was delivered in Simi Valley, I made a hurried phone call from my place of employment at Thomas Nix Distributors (TND) to some relatives back east. My message couldn't have been clearer. "They're going to burn this city down."
Tensions had been at the simmering point for months, and within an hour or so of the jury acquitting all four police officers on trial, reports began filtering in that gang-bangers and other street thugs were already inciting violence in south Central Los Angeles.
My company specialized in security products, but we also operated another division of 30+ check cashing locations in the poorer sections of the city. Realizing that these stores were teeming with tons of cash (which obviously isn't insurable), our head of security, Peter Currenti, dispatched all of his personnel in armored vehicles to retrieve anything of value thay could get their hands on as quickly as they could.
Soon, bulletproof vans were screeching into the back of our warehouse. SECURITY guys with weapons holstered to heir his began tossing garbage bags onto the loading dock filled with cash, lottery tickets, money orders, stamps and Western Union forms. My side kick, Pete Jiminez and I would then lug these bags up to the front office conference room, where the accounting department frantically sorted through it. By the time we returned, another van screeched in, again tossing more money onto the dock. From the hyper-adrenalized looks in their eyes, we could tell Los angeles was already turning into a war zone.
With widespread looting, assaults and cases of arson being reported, the situation became increasingly dangerous for our security team. In a Nov. 2 written interview, Peter Currenti told me of the extreme dangers they faced:
We deployed a team of personnel to one of the branches that had been burglarized in an effort to retrieve assets which we believed were still secured in the floor safe. After retrieving the assets, and in an attempt to exit the branch in broad daylight, several rounds of gunfire struck the building and surrounding parking lot. Apparently, whoever had been working at chiseling the safe of the the concrete floor wanted to prevent anyone from exiting with and assets. Having four employees trapped with no means of rescue, I sent in more security personnel in an armored truck to shield the exit door so the employees could reach their vehicle and drive to safety.
Meanwhile, other trucks continued to dump money in our warehouse. After depositing another bag up front, I noticed that piles of cash were now piled atop eight-foot folding tables scattered around the conference room. There was over $1 million.
There it was - huge stacks of money haphazardly wrapped in rubber bands - over a million dollars in cold hard cash right before my eyes.
Near quitting time, our company's owner - Tom Nix Jr., who ws carrying a shotgun - rushed into the warehouse and met with Jim Hooper and myself. Pumped with energy, he told us, "There are rumors that gangs are circling Carson (where our headquarters were located) and they might be coming this way. I have $1 million in cash up front, and there's no way in hell I'm going to let them have it." So, after handing the shotgun to Hooper, he told us with drop-dead seriousness. "I want you two to get in a van and start patrolling the business park, and if you see anyone getting close to here, you shoot those bastards first and ask questions later."
With his eyes locked onto ours, we could tell he meant every word of it. Soon we were cruising around Carson, (located next door to Watts, where the 1965 Watts riots occurred). In the distance, we saw smoke on the horizon and heard police sirens screaming from every direction.
Fortunately for us, we didn't spot any rioters, so early in the evening we were sent home. After arriving at my apartment in San Pedro, I turned on the TV to see Reginald Denny's construction truck being carjacked at the intersection of Florence and Normandie. Only days earlier, I had made a stop during my deliveries at a corner liquor store at this very spot which became the flashpoint for the riots.
Riots, beatings and looting continued throughout the night and into the next. That following day, Hooper and I were given a huge deposit that we had to deliver to a bank in L.A. Around us, buildings were burning out of control, gangs roamed the streets, while bandits pushed grocery carts teeming with stolen goods with brazen disregard.
In addition, even though martial law hadn't been "officially" declared, the National Guard, tanks and U.S. Army were now patrolling the streets of L.S. Currenti tells another story which reflects the insanity of that time:
In Lynnwood, an associate was working with the Sheriff's Department, who were dispatched to relieve a detail of Army personnel assigned to the protection of a building which housed a financial communications center. Upon arrival, the sheriff's deputies were greeted by a single soldier whose troops were hidden in positions of cover as if they were in a battlefield environment. A signal was given and several soldiers climbed out from nearby bushes and trees. The deputies requested that the Army provide cover for them as they moved to visible positions around the building. The soldiers, interpreting the request as a battlefield command, laid a spray of gunfire into the area landscaping until advised by the deputies that a law enforcement request to provide cover greatly differed from a battlefield command to provide cover.
In all, over $1 billion in property damages resulted. Services that were locally available to the areas worst hit took months, if not years, to be restored. Some have not been restored to this day.
Imagine us doing our jobs or protecting ourselves during those
riots had our guns been confiscated.
|Top|
Obama's dwindling band of true believers has taken heart that their man has finally delivered on one of his many promises—the closing of the Guantanamo prison. But the prison is not being closed. It is being moved to Illinois, if the Republicans permit.
In truth, Obama has handed his supporters another defeat. Closing Guantanamo meant ceasing to hold people in violation of our legal principles of habeas corpus and due process and ceasing to torture them in violation of US and international laws.
All Obama would be doing would be moving 100 people, against whom the US government is unable to bring a case, from the prison in Guantanamo to a prison in Thomson, Illinois.
Are the residents of Thomson despondent that the US government has chosen their town as the site on which to continue its blatant violation of US legal principles? No, the residents are happy. It means jobs.
The hapless prisoners had a better chance of obtaining release from Guantanamo. Now the prisoners are up against two US senators, a US representative, a mayor, and a state governor who have a vested interest in the prisoners' permanent detention in order to protect the new prison jobs in the hamlet devastated by unemployment.
Neither the public nor the media have ever shown any interest in how the detainees came to be incarcerated. Most of the detainees were unprotected people who were captured by Afghan war lords and sold to the Americans as "terrorists" in order to collect a proffered bounty. It was enough for the public and the media that the Defense Secretary at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, declared the Guantanamo detainees to be the "780 most dangerous people on earth."
The vast majority have been released after years of abuse. The 100 who are slated to be removed to Illinois have apparently been so badly abused that the US government is afraid to release them because of the testimony the prisoners could give to human rights organizations and foreign media about their mistreatment.
Our British allies are showing more moral conscience than Americans are able to muster. Former PM Tony Blair, who provided cover for President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, is being damned for his crimes by UK officialdom testifying before the Chilcot Inquiry.
The London Times on December 14 summed up the case against Blair in a headline: "Intoxicated by Power, Blair Tricked Us Into War." Two days later the British First Post declared: "War Crime Case Against Tony Blair Now Rock-solid." In an unguarded moment Blair let it slip that he favored a conspiracy for war regardless of the validity of the excuse [weapons of mass destruction] used to justify the invasion.
The movement to bring Blair to trial as a war criminal is gathering steam. Writing in the First Post Neil Clark reported: "There is widespread contempt for a man [Blair] who has made millions [his reward from the Bush regime] while Iraqis die in their hundreds of thousands due to the havoc unleashed by the illegal invasion, and who, with breathtaking arrogance, seems to regard himself as above the rules of international law." Clark notes that the West's practice of shipping Serbian and African leaders off to the War Crimes Tribunal, while exempting itself, is wearing thin.
In the US, of course, there is no such attempt to hold to account Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the large number of war criminals that comprised the Bush Regime. Indeed, Obama, whom Republicans love to hate, has gone out of his way to protect the Bush cohort from being held accountable.
Here in Great Moral America we only hold accountable celebrities and politicians for their sexual indiscretions. Tiger Woods is paying a bigger price for his girlfriends than Bush or Cheney will ever pay for the deaths and ruined lives of millions of people. The consulting company, Accenture Plc, which based its marketing program on Tiger Woods, has removed Woods from its Web site. Gillette announced that the company is dropping Woods from its print and broadcast ads. AT&T says it is re-evaluating the company's relationship with Woods.
Apparently, Americans regard sexual infidelity as far more serious than invading countries on the basis of false charges and deception, invasions that have caused the deaths and displacement of millions of innocent people. Remember, the House impeached President Clinton not for his war crimes in Serbia, but for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Americans are more upset by Tiger Woods' sexual affairs than they are by the Bush and Obama administrations' destruction of US civil liberty. Americans don't seem to mind that "their" government for the last 8 years has resorted to the detention practices of 1,000 years ago—simply grab a person and throw him into a dungeon forever without bringing charges and obtaining a conviction.
According to polls, Americans support torture, a violation of both US and international law, and Americans don't mind that their government violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spies on them without obtaining warrants from a court. Apparently, the brave citizens of the "sole remaining superpower" are so afraid of terrorists that they are content to give up liberty for safety, an impossible feat.
With stunning insouciance, Americans have given up the rule of law that protected their liberty. The silence of law schools and bar associations indicates that the age of liberty has passed. In short, the American people support tyranny. And that's where they are headed.
Paul Craig Roberts [email
him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President
Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including
the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International
Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover
Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of
Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author
of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking
in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown:
Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence
M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors
and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of
Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview
with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
|Top|
Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to put a new round of sanctions on Iran. If this measure passes the Senate, the United States could no longer do business with anyone who sold refined petroleum products to Iran or helped them develop their ability to refine their own petroleum. The sad thing is that many of my colleagues voted for this measure because they felt it would deflect a military engagement with Iran. I would put the question to them, how would congress react if another government threatened our critical trading partners in this way? Would we not view as asking for war?
This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this.
If a foreign government attempted to isolate the U.S. economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under one flag?
We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA's involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were not longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether.
With the exception of the military industrial complex, we
all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the
imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has
never been found out od compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear
powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear
capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully.
After all, we don't sanction nuclear capable countries. We take
diplomatic negotiations a lot more seriously, and we frequently
send money to them instead. The nun-nuclear countries are the
ones we bomb. If Iran was attempting to violate the non-proliferation
treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since U.S. foreign policy
gives them every incentive to do so.
|Top|
With foreign governments like China announcing they will be slowing their purchases of U.S. bonds this year, Washington is going to have to look even more to the banksters to pay its bills and finance its massive debt.
Across the globe, almost all of the industrialized nations are in serious financial trouble. Bogged down by high unemployment, huge debt and shrinking tax revenues, governments throughout Europe and Asia are struggling to stay afloat.
In the corporate world, businesses are suffering, too, and are preparing for the worst by paying down debt and staying as liquid as possible.
Last year was certainly no winner for U.S. bonds. New-York-based Bloomberg News reported that "treasuries were the worst performing sovereign debt market in 2009 as the U.S. sold $2.1 trillion of notes and bonds to fund extraordinary efforts to bolster the economy and financial markets." Sovereign debt refers to securities that are issued by national governments.
The year ended on a sour note when institutional investors and foreign countries balked at a Treasury auction of long-term securities. On Dec. 9, the Treasury was barely able to sell $21 billion of 10-year notes. A leading international wire service attributed the lackluster demand to the "burgeoning U.S. national debt" making it "difficult to sell bonds as auction sizes have expanded this year to pay for bailouts of the financial sector and economic stimulus measures."
Washington remains in denial about the situation. Officials are intent on continuing to prop up Wall Street. Almost 10 percent of the entire U.S. population is collecting unemployment benefits from the federal government.
And, now, Congress wants to hand the private health insurance industry a giant subsidy by forcing taxpayers to buy private insurance or face stiff penalties.
To do this, Washington is going to have to float an estimated $2.5 trillion in bonds to cover its outrageous spending in 2010. But who is going to buy these bonds at the current low rate on what is quickly becoming riskier debt?
A recent interview by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, a medical doctor who is also the editor of the magazine Silver Coin Investor, has some insights on the government's brewing financial woes.
"What is the solution?" asks Lewis. "The Fed will simply need to print more money."
In 2010, says Lewis, the Federal Reserve will have to continue its "quantitative easing," a fancy way of saying the Fed is going to turn on the printing presses and increase the money supply by pumping more dollars into circulation. Much of this will be used to buy up Treasury bills that no one else wants.
That's why Washington will have to look to the banksters for its own bailout, which will surely come at significantly higher interest.
This will lead to even more inflation, he says, something that not even financial chicanery, which eliminates rising energy and food costs when calculating price increases, will be able to hide.
"The Fed will have to further its quantitative easing programs to keep the Treasury markets liquid," says Lewis. "Should the Federal Reserve continue to print money to gap a shortfall in Treasury sales, the creation of $2 trillion would create inflation of 25 percent."
With some estimates putting true inflation at 20 percent right now, a rise of 25 percent is not implausible as the value of the dollar continues to fall in real terms. At that point, economists will start to talk about hyperinflation, which is simply defined as a condition in which "prices increase rapidly as a currency loses its value."
If Lewis is to be believed, it will not take much to push the U.S. dollar over the edge of the financial precipice on which it is currently balancing.
Can we expect this all to happen in 2010? Perhaps, says Lewis, but it may take longer for the fruit to ripen on the money tree. "As in all markets," argues Lewis, "inflation will not come out of the woodwork for a period of months and possibly up to two years, but it will eventually reach the market."
Christopher Petherick is a journalist and publisher based in Maryland. For more information, see his website at www.brandywinehouse.us or write directly to BRANDYWINE HOUSE BOOKS AND MEDIA, P.O. Box 638, Cheltenham, MD 20623. Petherick encourages all readers with Internet access to sign up for AFP's free weekly email newsletter. It's loaded with house news and special offers available only to newsletter recipients and AFP web site users.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
"We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." (Statement of Ariel Sharon, former prime minister of Israel, Oct. 3, 2001.)
It is so powerfully blatant that an Israeli prime minister (Ariel Sharon) was not even "concerned" when he uttered that statement on an Israeli radio show. Sharon was simply stating a known fact. A fact that never appeared in a U.S. newspaper (except for AFP) nor was it heard on any radio or television shows in America.
Think about it. A foreign leader, proclaiming that his country, Israel, and the Jewish people control America and it didn't make headline news.
They do. Israel, through its powerful lobby, AIPAC, dictates and manipulates American foreign policy, American commerce and the American media. You see folks, AIPAC needs only to "pull the strings" and the puppets on Capitol Hill dance to their music.
This introduction now takes me back to Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman—Jewish American spies. Spies for Israel. On June 13, 2005, an expanded indictment explicitly named AIPAC, and a "foreign country" (they couldn't even print "Israel"). The indictment also named an Israeli Mossad agent (Mossad is the Israeli spy agency), Naor Gilon.
That's June 13, 2005. Got that? Israel is named as an entity that is spying on America.
Despite this fact of AIPAC being actually named in an official indictment by the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice gave the keynote address at AIPAC's convention dated May 22, 2005.
Unbelievable? Not really. Just think about it. ("We, the Jewish people, control America.") I guess after my series of articles about AIPAC, the "Americans know it."
Think about it. It was common knowledge that indictments were forthcoming on AIPAC and Israeli operatives working inside our government to betray America, yet this powerful U.S. official, responsible for foreign policy, still agreed to be AIPAC's keynote speaker.
What's even worse and troubling is that leaders from both the Democratic and Republican parties also spoke. Willingly and without reservation whatsoever, they took to the microphone to praise Israel and AIPAC.
Listen carefully to what they said; "We declare our unconditional support for AIPAC, for Israel and for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon." Unconditional. Unconditional, regardless of indictments and without reservation. This group of speakers lavished praise upon praise for an entity that is spying on America. Is it any wonder America is in such deep trouble?
This group of "speakers" included the then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, the then-Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, and the Democratic Senate leader, Harry Reid. The leaders of both parties rallying to the defense of an entity charged with spying on our own government.
If that's not enough to roast your private parts, more than one half of the U.S. Senate was in attendance and over 150 members of the House of Representatives as well. All clapping and cheering the words of their leaders and all giving AIPAC assurances of their unwavering and unconditional support and loyalty. (Keep focusing on the word "unconditional.")
Beam me up!
These aren't mere "puppets," these are stone cold jackasses. Now tell me, are they members of Congress? Looks like members of the Israeli Knesset to me.
On August 4, 2005, the U.S. Justice Department formally indicted Rosen and Weissman. The indictment read:
"Rosen and Weissman received and passed documents to Israel via the Israeli Embassy."
Trial was set for April 25, 2006. Lawrence Franklin's trial (remember him, the Pentagon insider?) was to begin Jan. 2, 2006. It was postponed.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. AIPAC was alleged to have "pushed America into war with Iraq and had further plans to influence Congress to attack Iran." (Start thinking about body bags due to all the "unconditional" support AIPAC has.)
In March 2005, Israel "fired" Rosen and Weissman. Israel stated they were "appalled" by the behavior of these two AIPAC officials. Rosen and Weissman became the new "fall guys" for AIPAC. (Appalled my ascot. Israel always denies, remember Pollard and Franklin?)
Rosen and Weissman finally spoke. They said, "We did nothing different than any other AIPAC official. It is common practice for AIPAC operatives to conduct themselves in this manner, and we were simply following the orders of AIPAC." (Truth is, every AIPAC operative is evidently trained to behave exactly like Rosen and Weissman. And why not? AIPAC has the "unconditional" support of the fools in Washington.)
AIPAC orders spying on America. Think back to the AIPAC convention and the leaders of both parties pledging their "unconditional" support for AIPAC and Israel.
Evidently, even spying by Israel is allowed in the minds of both political parties of the U.S.A. After all, the support is "unconditional." That means there are no conditions. None. Nada. Nothing. Even spying.
Rosen and Weissman, Weissman and Rosen. Shock waves reverberated through Capitol Hill. The big question (fear) was, would Rosen and Weissman disclose the names of AIPAC contacts? Would they name members of Congress? Washington started to shake.
Still, how far would Rosen and Weissman go to soften the blow of their prosecution and probable conviction? Could this be the salvo that knocks Israel off the special treatment pedestal?
Would Rosen and Weissman "sing"? Would Weissman and Rosen "spill the beans on AIPAC"? On Israel? On U.S. officials? Would the U.S. Justice Department really go after Israel for spying on America?
As you ponder and deliberate these questions and scenarios, keep this one universal thought and concept in the back of your minds: "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." (Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.)
Next week, my conclusions and recommendations as well as my predictions. Get back at me.
James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a well-known football star. He also received a M.S. degree from Youngstown State University in 1976. For ten years he served as executive director of the Mahoning County (Ohio) Drug Program and from 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, he was expelled from the House of Representatives. Despite his conviction and expulsion and being sent to prison for a seven year term Traficant still won 15% of the vote running for re-election to the House in the 2002 election as an independent. He recently completed a seven-year prison sentence, having refused to seek a pardon or clemency, refusing to admit to or apologize for crimes he did not commit.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
"His explosives couldn't have blown up his own seat. Even if full power, it wouldn't have worked." These were the words relayed to me during a Jan. 2 interview with military analyst and counterinsurgency specialist Gordon Duff in regard to the attempt of Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab [sometimes referred to as Abdulmutallab] to ignite 80 grams of the explosive PETN on a flight destined for America. He also explained how the patsy's country of origin, Nigeria, is clandestinely controlled by the Israeli army and Mossad.
These entities train the military, sell weapons, run the airports, and wield power over DICON (Defense Industries Corporation). Furthermore, Mutallab's father is a Mossad partner and Israel's No. 1 contact in Nigeria. As the former CEO of his country's most influential bank and the man who ran their national arms industry, Mr. Mutallab also harbors extremely close relationships with the U.S. ambassador and CIA chief in Nigeria.
On Nov. 19, 2009, Mutallab supposedly felt so alarmed about his errant son's behavior that he met with the CIA's station chief in Nigeria. Duff describes the father in a Dec. 31 article for Veterans Today as "one of the richest people in the world, head of a major bank, head of the national armaments industry, and close associate of the U.S. ambassador," as well as being a Mossad asset. Yet we're to believe that nobody prevented his Yemeni-influenced "terrorist" son from boarding a plane ultimately bound for Detroit?
Another significant detail is being neglected by mainstream media sources. The firm in charge of security at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport is the Israeli-owned International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS).They're also the same outfit responsible for all three airports used by "Muslim hijackers" on 9-11. ICTS also handled security for London's bus system during their 7-7 "Muslim bombing," while doing the same at Charles de Gaulle Airport when "shoe bomber" Richard Reid boarded a plane in Paris on Dec. 22, 2001.
When a Michigan passenger, attorney Kurt Haskell, reported that a "well-dressed" Indian man arranged for Umar Mutallab to perform a "walkaround" without a passport in Amsterdam, ICTS was one of only a few entities that could have permitted this security breach to take place.
Despite tighter screening processes since 9-11, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 experienced no delays in takeoff. According to the Mathaba News Agency on Jan. 2, "It is evident that clearing the terrorist with higher-ups took a matter of a minute or so—the ‘Indian' obviously had a high-level pass (CIA, Mossad or high-level security clout)."
Then, during the flight, onlookers noted that another passenger spent a great deal of time filming 23-year-old Mutallab with his camcorder. Even stranger, once the suspect tried to ignite his "crotch bomb," Mathaba reported, "Throughout the incident, the man continued recording the terrorist, calmly and without interruption."
Next, after the plane landed, another Indian man was led away in handcuffs after bomb-sniffing dogs smelled explosives in his luggage. Now, more than a week later, officials have refused to release Schiphol CCTV airport footage from Amsterdam, the air-bound "video passenger" film, or identify the man arrested in Detroit.
This Indian link doesn't surprise Duff. "Israel and India are very close business partners, especially via their military contracts. Also, the Indian intelligence agency (Research and Analysis Wing) works hand-in-hand with Israel. Essentially, the two governments are one."
But the Mossad's reach extends even further, directly into the country where Mutallab purportedly trained. On Oct. 7, 2008, BBC News reported, "Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has said that security forces have arrested a group of alleged Islamist militants linked to Israeli intelligence."
The ties go even deeper, straight to Mutallab's home country. In a Sept. 5, 2008 article by Tashikalmah Hallah and Francis Okeke entitled "Nigeria: Lawmakers Divided Over Mossad," Sen. Nuhu Aliyu voiced his support for their pact with Israel. "They (Mossad) are professionals, and they are here to help train our own intelligence agents. I don't see any way by which their presence in the country poses a threat to our national security."
One final element of the equation needs to be addressed; specifically, the "terrorist cell" that ostensibly trained Mutallab prior to his Christmas Day terror attempt.
However, Duff paints an entirely different picture. "There is no al-Qaeda in Yemen. George Bush released a couple of phony operatives from Guantanamo, and after traveling to the Middle East, they hooked up with the Mossad. The only reason Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez released them is because they're assets."
Of course, the American public is being misled again into believing that this "lone nut" terrorist sneaked through the system (no-fly lists, airport scrutiny etc) due to mere incompetence, similar to what occurred on 9-11.
Yet Israeli intelligence provided security at the Amsterdam Airport, where Mutallab boarded a plane with no passport; the NSA is equipped to electronically eavesdrop anywhere around the world; the Mossad is tied to Yemen, Nigeria and India; while the suspect's father opened up banking and arms contacts in the Middle East while harboring an extremely close relationship with American and Israeli intelligence.
What we're being fed is another propagandized cover story that is intended to keep ratcheting up Orwellian-style trauma and fear, all the while further spreading our global "terror war" to Yemen and the African continent.
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
From free-trading Libertarians to pro-Main Street populists, far-left liberals and far-right conservatives have united behind an effort to kill language in the new trillion-dollar healthcare package passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve by a vote of 60 to 39 that would force Americans to buy insurance from private companies.
The calls refer to a section of the measure that would have the federal government and law enforcement punishing those americans who did not dign up to pay out of pocket for private health insurance. For most, it's a firm rejection of the federal government forcing people to buy something from private companies under threat of punishment.
"The federal government does not have the power to force you to purchase a private product," the Libertarian Cato Institute's Michael Cannon told a national newspaper in an interview recently.
Jim Dean, the brother of former Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, echoed Cannon's opinion saying: "We'd like to see the individual mandate stripped. I's not fair if people are required to buy insurance from the same insurance industry that caused this problem in the first place.
Under the recently passed Senate bill, the federal government would be deputized by the banking-medical-industrial complex to make sure Americans are purchasing health insurance. If someone chooses not to get insurance, he could face a fine of $750 per year or up to 2 percent of his total household income - whichever is greater. Under the House bill, the penalty is higher.
The two measures are being worked out in committee, so no one knows what the final penalties will be.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who recently announced that he will be running for governor there on the Republican ticket, has also come out publicly against that portion of the bill, saying it is unconstitutional.
"The mandate is especially troubling to Floridians who
are guaranteed through the Florida Constitution to have ‘the
right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into
their private life,'" he said.
|Top|
The revolving door between official Washington and the corporate world and Wall Street is an old story. But nowhere is it more glaringly apparent than the recent healthcare "reform" bill passed by the Senate the morning of Christmas Eve.
According to a new study by Northwestern University and the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog organization, an army of former elected officials and top congressional aides hired by the banking-medical-industrial complex as lobbyists converged on capitol Hill in the past year to influence legislation directed at the U.S. healthcare sector.
Northwestern researchers found that 166 former top staffers, who worked in the nine congressional leadership offices and five committees that developed the recently passed healthcare legislation, and 13 former lawmakers registered in the last year just so they could represent some 300 private healthcare businesses on the Hill.
In the past two years, these 300 healthcare companies shelled out over a half billion dollars in an effort to shape the legislation that was meant to regulate and overhaul their industry, said the researchers.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, employed the largest army of former bureaucrats with at least 26 former congressional members and staffers.
Former government-officials-turned-lobbyists included 14 former
aides to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and 13 former
staffers to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mt.), who is the chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee and headed the taskforce in the Senate
that worked to overhaul healthcare. At least six former aides
to now deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) also worked on shaping
the measure.
|Top|
I was wrongly diagnosed as delusional by the psychiatric staff of Ward 7 at Northland base Hospital in Whangarei, New Zealand and held against my will for 11 days in mid-2006, because I maintained the attacks of 9-11 were orchestrated by criminal elements inside the U.S. administration.
A definition of delusional: relating to, based on, or affected by delusions. A delusion: a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidation evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.
In light of the definition, one of the most astonding aspects of the ordeal was that when I met with the chief psychiatrist, Dr. Carlos Zubaran, for two formal mental health assessments, I held issue 3 of Uncensored, and asked him to look at information related to the 9-11 attacks. This magazine contained an article I'd written entitled: "Why Does TVNZ Lie to Us About 9-11?" Which cited evidence that proved the official fable was a lie. He refused to even cast his eyes over it, during both of the so-called "assessments."
Another astounding aspect was that Section 4 of the New Zealand Mental Health Act makes it clear that no one can be judged to be mentally ill solely on the basis of their political beliefs. The district inspector for Mental Health-Northland, barrister Julie Young, Bridget Westenra, the lawyer she appointed to assist me and the staff of Ward 7, including the chief psychiatrist, did not appear to know this. As can be seen, it is written in layman's language on page 33 of chapter 2 of Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, which is on the Ministry of Health's own website: "You cannot be considered to have a mental disorder just because of your political, religious or cultural beliefs."
As this judgment shows, because of his reluctance to scrutinize the evidence related to 9-11, and apparent lack of awareness of section 4 of the act, none days into my incarceration, Dr Zubaran still held the belief I suffered from a "delusional disorder."
The evidence that shows the official story of 9-11 was indeed a lie is now overwhelming. We now have what has been referred to as the "loaded gun" - this is the unignited nanothermite, a highly advanced explosive substance, which was far too sophisticated a composite to have originated from a cave in Afghanistan.
Thankfully, since writing about what happened and making numerous phone calls, sending many letters and supplying numerous DVDs to the staff of Ward 7 to show them the truth about 9-11 - and then finally threatening to protest outside the hospital - the clinical director of mental health and addiction services in Northland sent an apology in August 2008.
Dr. Zubaran did not apologize.
Clare Swinny is a member of Scholars for 9-11 Truth &
Justice.
|Top|
"The action is in the reaction" is perhaps the best way to summarize the purpose of most modern terrorism, despite the difficulty in determining whether official stories of terrorist activities are true, and determining which act of terrorism are "false-flag" inside jobs and which ones are not staged to deceive.
Longtime intelligence analyst Richard Clarke said on National Public Radio Jan.3 that six months ago, Americans would have rejected the idea of using full-body scanners to check airline passengers before they board commercial flights. But now that a "terrorist" was able to board a plane in Amsterdam on Christmas day and arrive in Detroit wearing "explosive underwear," Americans will likely accept the highly intrusive body scanners that show people's naked bodies in an image that resembles a photo negative, in Clarke's opinion.
And while "underwear man" could have been an inside "plant" for the purpose of provoking a reaction to make life more difficult for U.S. airline passengers, it's an established fact that most terrorists do not blow things up simply to terrorize people; they do so to inspire political repression in enemy nations. So, if their activities encourage U.S. authorities to clamp down even more on Americans' freedom, including the freedom to travel with relative ease, they will do so.
In other words, if the Transportation Security Administration someday installs these body scanners for domestic flights within the U.S. - and not just for international flights, as is now being seriously discussed - the TSA, a subunit of the Department of Homeland security, may be doing what the terrorists ultimately desire, which is less freedom for Americans.
Notably the Mini-manual of the Urban Guerrilla, a work by the late Latin American terrorist leader Carlos Marighella, written in 1969, tells how to disrupt and overthrow authority with an aim toward revolution. The text has been banned in many countries, but AFP located a copy. It concisely explains the essential purpose of terrorism - an angle that U.S. "leaders" and big media tend to avoid.
When terrorist activities become evident, wrote Marighella, "The government (the regime attacked by the terrorists) has no alternative except to intensify its repression. The Police networks, house searches, the arrest of suspects and innocent persons, and the closing off of streets make life unbearable. The military dictatorship embarks on massive political persecution. Political assassinations and police terror become routine."
He also wrote, "In spite of all this, the police systematically fail. The armed forces, the navy and the air force are mobilized to undertake routine police functions, but even so, they can find no way to halt guerrilla operations or to wipe out the revolutionary organization, with its fragmented groups that move around and operate throughout the country."
This is also a clue that, by definition, terrorist groups would never centralize their operations in any one region or nation; therefore, the idea of fighting a trillion-dollar-war in Afghanistan to get rid of terrorism is ludicrous, since terrorists by their very nature keep themselves fragmented and deploy assets in various locations around the world. Thus, the U.S. "War on terror" would last forever. The grand irony is that the U.S. government's crackdown on domestic life to "combat terrorism" means that Americans will have more to fear from their own government than from the terrorists.
Marighella also wrote in his widely read manual: "Meanwhile, the government with all of its problems, incapable of halting guerrilla [terrorist] actions within the cities, will lose time and suffer endless attrition, and will finally be forced to pull back its repressive forces in order to mount guard over all the banks, industries, armories, military barracks, prisons, public offices, radio and television stations, North American forms, gas storage tanks, oil refineries, ships, ports, airports, hospitals, health centers, blood banks, stores, garages, embassies, residences of high-ranking members of the regime such as ministers and generals, police stations, official organizations etc."
Note the mention of airports in this list of expected government controls and lockdowns provoked by terrorists. And while Latin American terrorist tactics and purposes may differ from those of Islamic terrorist groups, it's highly likely that the differences are minor. This is food for thought as 2010 comes around and Americans are subjected to Associated Press propaganda about the federal government's "unquestionable need" for even more surveillance and security measures that will make traveling and other activities increasingly expensive, intrusive and cumbersome - possibly getting to the point where only "approved" reasons for traveling will be allowed.
Yet by knowing the real reasons that such changes occur, Americans
can be mentally equipped to strongly protest any intrusive measures
that impede travel and other liberties.
|Top|
On Christmas Eve, after many backroom deals were made, the Senate passed the healthcare reform bill with a strictly partisan vote. I was pleased that my colleagues in the GOP are on the right side of this bill. Although this vote was a major step in healthcare reform becoming reality, they still have to reconcile the Senate bill with the House-passed version in conference committee. This could prove even more difficult and costly than the Senate vote.
There was a little bit of controversy surrounding one particular senator who was intially against the bill, but then, coincidentally, a large amount of Medicare funding specifically for his state was tucked inside and he ended up voting for it. One wonders how much more of that will have to go on to achieve final passage.
But this is how politicians in Washington deal with problems: they throw your money at them. Healthcare reform is no different. The Senate version of the bill, at last count, will cost $871 billion. The House version tops $1 trillion. But they tell us this is for the health of Americans, and how dare we count the cost?
Such is the arrogance of politicians. There seems to be no end to the problems they feel capable and duty bound to solve through legislative proclamation and plenty of your money. To hear them talk, one might think that a few words spoken on Capitol Hill would make problems just disappear. All it takes is good intentions.
But no good can come from 2,400 pages of Washington's good intentions.
I have observed quite the opposite throughout my political career and fear that with this immense legislation, our healthcare problems are only just beginning. Over the last few decades, I have seen healthcare subjected to more and more creeping red tape that only creates bottle necks and increases costs as new bureaucratic hurdles are put in place.
Politicians cannot solve the problems created by ever increasing their intervention. Similarly, they cannot improve the quality of healthcare and expand access to it for all Americans simply by legislative decree. If only it were that simple! The reality is the free market, when allowed to function, naturally increases access and drives prices down through competition. The free market keeps service providers, accountable, and lets people "shop" elsewhere.
This government intervention will eventually create a near monopoly of providers in health insurance as smaller companies are squeezed out and innovation comes to a grinding halt due to formidable barriers to entry. The government will determine prices and levels of service that will apply to everyone, regardless of want or individual circumstances. The true insurance model of healthcare cost management, meaning major medical coverage only, will basically become illegal. Opting out of the system will incur heavy tax penalties.
Expanding government reach so deeply into this very sensitive area of our personal lives and such a major part of our economy means more opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse of the system.
So while the senate patted itself on the back last week for
delivering a Christmas gift to Americans, time will prove it
was instead a great big lump of coal.
|Top|
A Bryantown, Md., nurse accomplished two rare tax court feats in her battle with the Internal Revenue Service recently. She not only won against the agency's high-priced legal team without using an attorney herself, but she also got a ruling that could help tens of thousands of students deduct the cost of a masters degree on their future taxes.
The odyssey of Lori Singleton-Clarke, 47, began in 2006, when she filed her 2005 return. It showed just over $50,000 in income, several smaller deductions, and one large one—for $14,787 of expenses for an MBA from the University of Phoenix, an online school.
Ms. Singleton-Clarke deducted the tuition because her tax preparer told her that met the law's narrow definitions. When the IRS audited the return in late 2006, she conceded all the IRS's challenges to her deductions but one. She dug in her heels on the tuition deduction because, after looking at a complex diagram in IRS Publication 970, she believed she qualified for it.
Ms. Singleton-Clarke drew on skills she developed as a nurse responsible for dealing with doctors who may have infringed hospital rules. That was why she studied for her MBA: she says, "I didn't want to feel outmatched by surgeons who didn't want to talk to me."
The U.S. Tax Court handed Ms. Singleton-Clarke her victory last month, saying that the business school deduction had been proper. The ruling is certain to make the expense of a post-college degree more attractive for many other professionals in the future.
After getting word of the court decision by mail, "I nearly yelled the roof off the house," Ms. Singleton- Clarke says. "I still can hardly believe it." She says she didn't have a lawyer for the simple reason that she couldn't afford one.
Decisions in small cases aren't allowed to be cited as precedent.
"But everyone uses them," says Melissa Labant, a tax expert with the American Institute of CPAs. "This case definitely provides a road map others can use, especially MBA students."
Few taxpayers go toe-to-toe with the IRS as Ms. Singleton-Clarke did, arguing her case without a lawyer. For good reason: In 2009, individuals won only about 10 percent of about 300 such cases, according to data from Tax Analysts, a group that fights for tax-system transparency and since 1972 has won a series of freedom-of-information cases against the IRS.
Some of the losers, such as several dozen tax protesters, were tilting at tax windmills. Others were simply on the wrong side of the law, including a horse enthusiast who wanted to deduct his hobby losses, an unsuccessful comedian who tried to classify his expenses as business losses, and an attorney who claimed over $100,000 in medical deductions for his visits to prostitutes.
Of the few who did prevail against the IRS, nearly half came to court on a single issue: requests for "innocent spouse" treatment that decouples a spouse from a partner who does not pay his taxes. This provision has been used mostly to protect wives. One of the spouses granted relief last year was formerly married to an investment banker who didn't pay his taxes after his bonus didn't come through.
Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan's experiences with Tupper Saussy when the American dissident was on the run in the 1980s. Both are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS for $25 each.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
ON AUGUST 24, A FEDERAL INDICTMENT read that Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two senior employees with the pro-Israel lobbying firm AIPAC, "did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully conspire to deliver and transmit information that could be used to the injury of the U.S.A."
The indictment further read that Rosen and Weissman "influenced persons within the U.S. to gather classified information for subsequent unlawful use."
Think about it. Conspire, transmit, unlawful, knowingly and willfully. These are words that relate to the behavior of spies. No other definition can be applied. Rosen and Weissman are stone-cold spies for Israel, who were spying on America. You agree? I'd bet on it.
But lo and behold, the courts disagreed. So did The Washington Post. Not even the U.S. Justice Department agreed that these two are spies.
And check this out: A deputy secretary of state said: "These so-called spy meetings were nothing more than ‘back channel' communications to advance U.S. foreign policy goals."
You read that correctly: The U.S. government now believes that all involved were examples of the U.S. government's use of AIPAC as a diplomatic "back channel" to help America, not harm America.
Beam me up! How did Rosen and Weissman become patriots, not spies? What's next, Congressional Medals of Honor for the two?
The Washington Post wrote that the government's description of Rosen's and Weissman's actions made it a "high burden for U.S. prosecutors." The government essentially gave "cover" for a dismissal of all charges here.
Furthermore, the government then claimed that the information, no longer referred to as classified documents, being passed on by Rosen and Weissman was "innocuous." According to the dictionary, innocuous means not offensive and not even controversial. This is unbelievable.
So what happened next? You guessed it. On May 1, 2009, Rosen and Weissman were "exonerated" of all charges, meaning the charges were dismissed. Think about this: U.S. Attorney Dana Boente said he "didn't want classified information to be disclosed at trial." What? Come on, attorney general, I thought this information was "innocuous"? Who's kidding who?
The truth is, Israel has been preying upon Uncle Sam since June 8, 1967, when Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty. That's right: The Israeli military attacked a U.S. ship with the intent of destroying it. (Readers of AFP know more about this than just about anybody in America.)
This act of war was covered up both by Israel and by our government. Survivors and high-ranking U.S. naval personnel witnessed the deliberate attack. But Israel's tentacles reached deep into our government to cover it up, going as far back as 1967.
Down to this day, the Liberty attack had been disguised as an "honest mistake" by Israel. My ascot, it was a mistake.
I recommend the book Ship Without a Country by Victor Thorn and Mark Glenn. You'll learn the truth about the USS Liberty there.* And if you think you already know the truth, the gripping eyewitness accounts in the book just might bring you to tears.
The truth cannot be deceived nor denied. Israel has a stranglehold on the U.S. government. She has put America into war with Iraq and continues to push our country toward war with Iran.
It's time for the American people to take back their government. You can start by taking a pilgrimage to Washington, D.C. I will be headlining a "National Town Hall meeting" at the Capitol Skyline Hotel, hosted by AMERICAN FREE PRESS where I will be discussing the hidden dynamics that have compromised our great nation. No holds barred, I plan to tell it like it is.** And as for AIPAC, if any other lobbyists engaged in the kind of espionage that AIPAC has, they would be in prison, disbanded and prohibited from further activity in the United States.
What are my recommendations? Treat AIPAC like everybody else. Investigate the organization and prohibit it from any further contact with our government. When the great coach of the Green Bay Packers Vince Lombardi died, his players remarked: "He treated us all alike—like dogs, but all alike." That's how it should be.
One more thing: Congress should terminate all aid for Israel. Israel knew what AIPAC was doing, because Israel planned and ordered it. Israel should also be compelled to answer for the USS Liberty.
Now that I've totally alienated myself from all mainstream media, I'll conclude my series on AIPAC, with the following quote voiced by Ariel Sharon on Oct. 3, 2001: "We the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
Next week: The communist U.S. tax code. That's right: the absolute, communist, progressive income tax that has destroyed America.
James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a well-known football star. He also received a M.S. degree from Youngstown State University in 1976. For ten years he served as executive director of the Mahoning County (Ohio) Drug Program and from 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, he was expelled from the House of Representatives. Despite his conviction and expulsion and being sent to prison for a seven year term Traficant still won 15% of the vote running for re-election to the House in the 2002 election as an independent. He recently completed a seven-year prison sentence, having refused to seek a pardon or clemency, refusing to admit to or apologize for crimes he did not commit.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
According to an independent British newspaper editor, in the not-so-distant future, English drivers will be charged based upon the number of miles they drive, as is being done step-by-step in America.
On January 12, AFP interviewed Mike Robinson, the editor of the UK Column, a liberty-minded newspaper not unlike AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
"Road charging," as it is called in England, is widespread, he told AFP, as fiber optic cable has been laid along most English roads to help track vehicle travel by the mile so drivers can be charged.
"It has been on the European Union agenda for quite a long time," he added.
His comments came amid recent news of a radical plan to raise $200 billion by privatizing "the motorway network," as Brits call it. The plan was presented to the three main political parties by NM Rothschild, the influential investment bank, British news sources say.
The Rothschild bank, called "an architect of several privatizations," reportedly made its pitch in the weeks running up to the summer recess back on July 21, 2009. Bankers told leading politicians that the sale of the roads overseen by the [public] Highways Agency—all motorways and most "big trunk roads"—could help revive battered public finances. This is the same story Americans have been told.
True to form, toll-road companies and "infrastructure funds" would compete to operate and maintain stretches of the British toll network.
In one version of this scheme, the British government would pay for upkeep through a system of "shadow" tolls. A more radical and less politically acceptable option would be for private companies to charge motorists directly through privately owned toll booths or electronic card readers.
And how did U.S. politicians get the idea that privatizing roads was an acceptable future? Two words: Goldman Sachs, according to noted Texas columnist Ed Wallace.
"Yes, large Wall Street investment banks, led by Goldman, started advising states across the nation on how to raise fast money by diverting the most necessary publicly owned assets—roads—into private ownership," wrote Wallace. "You have to admit, it's brilliant, because it's a forced and guaranteed market: Americans can't get out of driving."
And as Daniel Schulman and James Ridgeway wrote in a scathing article, "The Highwaymen," in January 2007, "Many similar deals are now on the horizon, and MIG and Cintra are often part of them. So is Goldman Sachs, the huge Wall Street firm that has played a remarkable role advising states on how to structure privatization deals—even while positioning itself to invest in the toll road market."
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as a corresponding editor for American Free Press. Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events they cover for AFP. Mark welcomes your comments and inputs as well as story leads. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Was the faulure to stop a high-profile terrorist with his underpants loaded with explosives just another embarrassing failure or a deliberate plot to kill hundreds of Americans as a "logical" step in the overarching Israeli plot to stampede America into more wars for Israel's benefit? The Israelis know facts that the U.S. mass media doesn't share with Americans.
International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), an Israeli firm - founded by a convicted criminal - is responsible for security inspections in the airport in Schiphol, Holland where Umar Farouk, Abdul Mutallab boarded the Airbus 330 heading for Detroit.
Rom Langer, the director of ICTS, granted Israeli Channel 2 News an interview. He admitted the would-be terrorist did undergo security inspection in Amsterdam, but had no other comment.
ICTS is a Netherlands-based aviation and transportation security firm headed by and run by "former" Israeli military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence, security agencies and organized criminals and corrupt politicians at the highest levels. It has been in business since 1982. It employs 11,000 security personnel in at least 22 countries.
Only readers of AFP will know that ICTS was in charge of security at Logan Airport (from whence Flight 175 and Flight 11 took off) and Newark airport (from which Flight 93 departed on 9-11-2001.
The founder and head of ICTS, Menahem J. Atzmon - a convicted
criminal - was directly responsible for passenger and airline
security at Boston's Logan Airport on 9-11. Atzmon was a partner
in crime with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who
is being investigated in at least four corruption cases and was
indicted in the Jerusalem District Court on Aug. 30, 2009.
|Top|
The Federal Reserve is fighting desperately, amid a growing populist backlash, to keep Main Street from knowing the inner workings of the privately owned and controlled central bank and the secret financial deals it made with Wall Street following the collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008.
In early January, a team of lawyers hired by the Fed was back in court, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan to block a precious ruling that would have forced the central bank to disclose details surrounding $2 trillion in secret loans it had made to unknown financial firms following the collapse of Lehmen Bros. in 2008.
The Fed's lawyers were appealing the August 24 ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska, who said the Fed is obligated to open its books to news agencies and watchdog groups. While not a complete audit, Preska's decision would have forced the Fed to produce secret information surrounding loans the central bank had made to the biggest financial firms in the world.
During the latest hearing, the Fed whined that disclosure of "highly sensitive" documents, including over 200 pages of daily financial briefings, would stigmatize lenders and cause them "irreparable competitive injury."
It is uncertain when the appeals curt will issue a decision, but the case is problematic for the bankers because it shines a light on the shady side of the financial world.
As previously reported in AFP, New york-based Bloomberg News, owned by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, had filed the lawsuit (Bloomberg LP vs Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, southern District of New York) two years ago, seeking the information from the Fed. Bloomberg charged that the public had the right to know the facts about the loans made by the Fed since taxpayers were on the hook for the money.
Ironically, Bloomberg brought the lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law that requires officials to divulge to the general public documents and information, especially those related to the inner workings of government. Of course, the Federal Reserve is not a federal agency. It is an independent bank, which operates outside of the public sector with no accountability. But that didn't stop the federal judge from ruling in favor of the New York news agency.
The FOIA suit has resulted in one interesting twist: The New York-based Clearing House Association LLC, a financial services group that processes payments among banks, has ridden to the defense of the Fed. Members of the association include some of the largest international banks, like the Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of America, the Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings, JPMorgan Chase & Co., U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. It has long been believed that these banks- which make up the modern Money Trust - are the true owners of the U.S. central bank and that it is not a public financial institution as the Fed maintains.
The Federal Reserve has been facing growing populist anger due to its policies that have sacrificed the U.S. dollar and put the federal government further in debt in an effort to salvage the fractional reserve banking system. The House of Representatives has even gone so far as to pass landmark legislation that would open up all of the Red's books to an official and public audit - something that has never happened since the Fed started in 1913.
Over the course of the past two years, the Fed's balance sheet
has grown significantly, with the Fed's assets - the loans it
has made to other banks and the government - doubling since the
economic recession first hit in 2008. This money, which has been
handed out like cheap candy to banks around the world, resulting
in a drop in value of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies.
|Top|
The modern bank is a secure fortress. Its guards will protect yur irreplaceable property and originals of personal, real estate, financial and business documentation when you store them in a safe deposit box.
The bank is obsessively secure but not invincible. It is vulnerable to natural disasters, theft and court orders. Possessions are at risk to flooding, since banks usually store safe boxes in the basement. A fire's heat will felt precious metals and turn paper to dust. A bold and knowledgeable thief may find a way past security.
As a rule of thumb, Bankrate.com recommends, "Anything you can do to increase the chances of identifying, claiming or recovering an item is worth the effort." So, understand the available protections and exemptions. FDIC's $100,000 guarantee does not apply to contents of a safe deposit box. Some homeowner's insurance "content coverage" clause covers damage regardless of the property's physical location. Don beery of Eustis Insurance says to check your policy for the statement, "We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world." Know what the policy covers. Most contents cover fire and theft but exclude flood, the most common damage.
As an alternative, a personal-articles floater provides additional coverage for specific pre-established property such as jewelry." Companies territorially rate personal-articles floaters on the probability of theft where you principally reside, " explains Beery. Floaters cover valuables even without safe deposit boxes, and even against "mysterious disappearances."
Remember common-sense protection. Store valuables in airtight containers. Stash copies of the documents and photographs of the vault's contents in another safe place. Make sure that a responsible family member or friend has access to the box, should something happen to you.
The bank sets up access guidelines and will defend itself if you claim unauthorized access or theft. Know whether the relationship you have with the bank is bailor (you) or landlord-tenant. The relationship makes a night-and-day difference in the bank's liability. Ask which "special agreements" are available to maximize your rights.
The most common protections are dual control and authorized signature. With dual control, the renter and an employee open the box, so no one person may come in and remove contents. The bank holds a card with authorized signatures and only allow access to designated people.
If you prove that a bank employee has been taking articles, then the bank's liability insurance will cover the loss, assures FDIC spokesman Frank Gresock. Otherwise, use the same procedure as if items had been taken from your home. The branch manager will open the box without your permission if faced with a court order, a search warrant, rental delinquency or branch closure. In that case, employees will inventory the contents and pass them to the state treasurer or to a vault for safekeeping.
A safe deposit box is a secure place to store valuables. But remember - nothing protects it from the unexpected or from the law.
Your valuables may be safer buried underground than in a safe
deposit box.
|Top|
Retired constitutional attorney Michael Connelly of Carrollton, Texas has done what few people and few congressmen have done: He has read the entire text of House bill 3200, the so-called "Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009."
He says he studied it with particular emphasis from areas of his own expertise, constitutional law, and was concerned that certain parts would not pass muster.
What he found was far worse than he expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, connelly asserts, despite what the democrats and the media are saying. The new law does provide for rationing of healthcare, particularly where old people and other classes of citizens are involved, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government-operated system. All decisions about personal healthcare will be ultimately made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be healthcare professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
But as scary as all of that is, Connelly says it just scratches the surface.
"In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable healthcare choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the executive branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed."
Connelly says the first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. Congress will be transferring to the Obama administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas in the first place, and Connelly defies anyone to read the text of the Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, to all of your personal healthcare, and Connelly again points out that this would be a direct violation of the specific provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the constitution. It gives bureaucrats access to our personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician and hospital.
All of thisis a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but wasn't it effectively removed already by the "Patriot Act"? In any case, Connelly says you can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the Third and Fourth amendments provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the health choices administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed upon you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, by Connelly's assessment. However, that doesn't circumvent it either because, since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
The investigative attorney immediately cites three of those pesky amendments (out of the original 10 in the Bill of Rights) that the far left hates so much that are effectively nullified by this new law. It doesn't stop there though.
The Ninth amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
The 10th Amendment states: "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." Under the provisions of this piece of congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
Connelly says: "This is not about health care; it is
about seizing power and limiting rights. Article Six of the constitution
requires the members of both houses of congress to ‘be bound
by oath or affirmation to support the constitution.' If I was
a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation
or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred
oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the
American people would hold me accountable.
|Top|
A majority of the temperature collection stations in the United States provide higher readings than they should because they are too close to sources of heat like air-conditioned buildings, parking lots and much-traveled roads. These sources of heat have increased over the last 25 years due to increased development. This has resulted in increasing temperature readings higher than those recorded by satellites. Using this flawed data to predict future temperatures is not good science.
Ample funds were available to endure that the temperature collection system would produce reliable data. No effort was made to do so. The scientists involved in predicting global temperatures either didn't know they were using flawed data or they did know. If they didn't know, they were incompetent. If they did know, they were dishonest. It is hard to believe that a lerge number of well-paid scientists with doctoral degrees were all incompetent. Their incorrect predictions of abnormally increasing temperatures have served a political purpose - witness the meeting of world leaders in Denmark. It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that their predictions represent politically modified science.
The fact that an economist - a member of the White House staff (probably Keith Hennessey) - told scientists, concerned about the ending of an interglacial period, that the unofficial policy of the United States was that the Earth was warming is significant.
That he later is reported to have written a book about carbon credits is even more significant. Government support for studies of global warming since the Ford administration (1975 -77) indicates that politicians may have intended to profit from global warming, real or not, for a very long period of time.
Al Gore, vice president during the Clinton administration, has been benefitting for years with income from speeches and reported trading in carbon credits.
The scientists who have been modifying the data to render it politically correct have benefitted.
Politicians at the United Nations who are making a career out of promoting man-made global warming for years have benefitted.
Politicians who hope to increase tax income in the Western World expect to benefit.
Bankers and financiers expect to profit from trading carbon credits.
About the only people not expected to profit from global warming
are the taxpayers of the world.
|Top|
When Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was chairman of the New York federal Reserve, he urged AIG officials not to disclose to the Securities Exchange Commission relevant details of agreements with banks to bail out Goldman Sachs. Apparently he felt at the time that regulators and the public would be angry that taxpayer money was used to fully compensate bankers who made some horrifically bad investment decisions. These banks should have suffered the consequences of the huge risks they were taking After all, they kept plenty of rewards when times were good. Instead, the Fed found a way to socialize these major losses so these banks cold survive and continue making more bad decisions, at the expense of the American people and the value of the dollar.
Geithner claims that they had to take politically unpopular actions to save the economy from collapse. Half of that is right - it was politically unpopular, but it is extremely premature at best, to claim the economy has been saved. It was just reported that 85,000 more jobs were lost in December. Unemployment stands at 10 percent officially, and 22 percent according to more traditional calculations. It is hard to argue that this sort of government waste has done anything but harm to our economy.
Raiding Main Street to bail out Wall Street is a foolish idea. Main Street productivity and the strength of the dollar is the bedrock of the economy. You cannot gut this foundation without eventually toppling everything else. This is what too many policy makers either don't understand or refuse to face. Or even worse, perhaps they do understand, but don't care.
In any case, this revelation makes precisely my point about the need for Fed transparency. This claim that the Fed should have "independence" is a canard. They very much enjoy their comfortable pattern of bailing out friends and devaluing the currency with no oversight and no accountability. Geithner specifically asked officials at AIG not to disclose to the SEC or to the public particulars about this special deal for his friends. We only know these details now because AIG was eventually forthcoming when Congress demanded the same answers.
We should be getting this information, and information on all such dealings, straight from the Fed. The Fed should be accountable to Congress because it is a creature of Congress. The Constitution gives congress the authority to oversee the integrity of the monetary unit. We have unwisely and unconstitutionally delegated this authority to the Federal Reserve, which has in turn devalued our dollar by 95 percent and counting. When the Federal Reserve engages in harmful policies, Congress is still ultimately responsible. If the Fed is not made accountable through a government audit at least, it will continue to be accountable to no one, and that is unacceptable.
Geithner expects to be praised and thanked for his actions
instead of rebuked and fired. He expects to be given more power
to engage in "experimental" monetary policy in the
future. But he has just given us a very good idea of what the
Fed and Treasury would do with more power, what they consider
good monetary policy, and why they like their so-called independence.
|Top|
What are we to make of the failed Underwear Bomber plot, the Toothpaste, Shampoo, and Bottled Water Bomber plot, and the Shoe Bomber plot? These blundering and implausible plots to bring down an airliner seem far removed from al-Qaida's expertise in pulling off 9/11.
If we are to believe the U.S. government, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged al-Qaida "mastermind" behind 9/11, outwitted the CIA, the NSA, indeed all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies as well as those of all U.S. allies including Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, Air Traffic Control, Airport Security four times on one morning, and Dick Cheney, and with untrained and inexperienced pilots pulled off skilled piloting feats of crashing hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, where a battery of state of the art air defenses somehow failed to function.
After such amazing success, al-Qaida would have attracted the best minds in the business, but, instead, it has been reduced to amateur stunts.
The Underwear Bomb plot is being played to the hilt on the TV media and especially on Fox "news." After reading recently that The Washington Post allowed a lobbyist to write a news story that preached the lobbyist's interest, I wondered if the manufacturers of full body scanners were behind the heavy coverage of the Underwear Bomber, if not behind the plot itself. In America, everything is for sale. Integrity is gone with the wind.
Recently I read a column by an author who has a "convenience theory" about the Underwear Bomber being a Nigerian allegedly trained by al-Qaida in Yemen. As the U.S. is involved in an undeclared war in Yemen, about which neither the American public nor Congress were informed or consulted, the Underwear Bomb plot provided a convenient excuse for Washington's new war, regardless of whether it was a real attack or a put-up job.
Once you start to ask yourself about whose agenda is served by events and their news spin, other things come to mind. For example, last July there was a news report that the government in Yemen had disbanded a terrorist cell, which was operating under the supervision of Israeli intelligence services. According to the news report, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told Saba news agency that a terrorist cell was arrested and that the case was referred to judicial authorities "for its links with the Israeli intelligence services."
Could the Underwear Bomber have been one of the Israeli terrorist recruits? Certainly Israel has an interest in keeping the US fully engaged militarily against all potential foes of Israel's territorial expansion.
The thought brought back memory of my Russian studies at Oxford University where I learned that the Tsar's secret police set off bombs so that they could blame those whom they wanted to arrest.
I next remembered that Francesco Cossiga, the president of Italy from 1985-1992, revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, a false flag operation under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The bombings were blamed on communists and were used to discredit communist parties in elections.
An Italian parliamentary investigation unearthed the fact that the attacks were overseen by the CIA. Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated in sworn testimony that the attacks targeted innocent civilians, including women and children, in order "to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
What a coincidence. That is exactly what 9/11 succeeded in accomplishing in the U.S.
Among the well-meaning and the gullible in the West, the supposition still exists that government represents the public interest. Political parties keep this myth alive by fighting over which party best represents the public's interest. In truth, government represents private interests, those of the office holders themselves and those of the lobby groups that finance their political campaigns. The public is in the dark as to the real agendas.
The U.S. and its puppet state allies were led to war in the Middle East and Afghanistan entirely on the basis of lies and deception. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction did not exist and were known by the U.S. and British governments not to exist. Forged documents, such as the "yellowcake documents," were leaked to newspapers in order to create news reporting that would bring the public along with the government's war agenda.
Now the same thing is happening in regard to the nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program. Forged documents leaked to The Times (London) that indicated Iran was developing a "nuclear trigger" mechanism have been revealed as forgeries.
Who benefits? Clearly, attacking Iran is on the Israeli-U.S. agenda, and someone is creating the "evidence" to support the case, just as the leaked secret "Downing Street Memo" to the British cabinet informed Prime Minister Tony Blair's government that President Bush had already made the decision to invade Iraq and "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The willingness of people to believe their rulers and the propaganda ministries that serve the rulers is astonishing. Many Americans believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program despite the unanimous conclusion of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies to the contrary.
Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives fought hard with limited success to change the CIA's role from intelligence agency to a political agency that manufactures facts in support of the neoconservative agenda. For the Bush Regime creating "new realities" was more important than knowing the facts.
Recently I read a proposal from a person purporting to favor
an independent media that stated that we must save the print
media from financial failure with government subsidies. Such
a subsidy would complete the subservience of the media to government.Even
in Stalinist Russia, a totalitarian political system where everyone
knew that there was no free press, a gullible or intimidated
public and Communist Party enabled Joseph Stalin to put the heroes
of the Bolshevik Revolution on show trial and execute them as
capitalist spies.
In the U.S. we are developing our own show trials. Sheikh Mohammed's
will be a big one. As Chris Hedges recently pointed out, once
government uses demonized Muslims to get the new justice (sic)
system going, the rest of us will be next.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments,
including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded
the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.
He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account
of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy
and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author
with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions :
How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution
in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes
Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of
prosecutorial misconduct.
|Top|