July, 5, 2010
- Global Pentagon Manhunt
- The Destruction of U.S. Border States
- Watch Out Federal Reserve: Senate Agrees To Expanded ‘Audit The Fed' Provision
- The Only Correct Strategy in Afghanistan
- Losing In Afghanistan
- Does British Petroleum Really Want to Cap the Oil Well?
- Misdirected Government Stymies Gulf Solution By Rep. Ron Paul
- 9-11, BP Oil Spill: Scrutinizing Those Who Profited
- Proposed New Energy Tax:
- Outrageous: The Blackballing of Helen Thomas
July 12, 2010
- Gun Victory in Chicago!
- Senate Democrats Seek to Exploit Oil Spill to Ramrod Climate Bill
- Obama, FTC Plan to Bail Out, Subsidize Lapdog Media
- Alcohol-Based Motor Fuels a High-Octane Energy Solution
- House, Senate Pass Israel-Backed Effort to Starve Iranian People
- Lieberman Bill Gives President Authority To Silence Internet
- Bilderberg Luminaries Try to Save the Euro; Failure Could Lead to Unraveling of EU
- Canadians Outraged At G-20 Police State Tactics
- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Says U.S. Has Hit Borrowing Limit
- Americans Have Lost Trust In Uncle Sam's ‘Solutions'
- Our Noble Invasion of Afghanistan
July 19 & 26, 2010
- Line Drawn In Arizona Sand
- Thousands of Vets to Meet in Dallas
- Lieberman Says Pentagon Ready to Strike Iran
- Are D.C. Politicians Being Blackmailed to Do NWO's Bidding?
- AFP Visits the Gulf
- Barney Frank, Ron Paul Teaming Up To Cut Rampant Military Spending
- Big Pharma's Influence
- Americans Must Rise & Support Anti-Illegal Immigration Laws
- The Coming Assault on Social Security
Whole Body Health
- Preparedness: Helping All AFP Readers Get Ready for Tomorrow
- Raising Grain: Your Key to Food Independence
- Planting Your Own 'Victory Garden': Idea Catching On
The founder of a popular web site, which was set up for government, corporate and religious whistle blowers to leak classified documents that would otherwise have been buried, has been forced into hiding out of fear that his life is in grave danger following reports that the U.S. military is out to get him.
During a June 18 telephone interview from Reykjavik, Iceland, Birgitta Jonsdottir described to this writer how a Pentagon "manhunt" for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has forced him to go underground.
"If caught, his life is in danger," she began. "Assange has been advised to lay low and remain in hiding for as long as possible. Right now, he's moving between various places, and won't go to the United States, because it's not safe."
The reason Pentagon officials and other agencies want to detain Assange is that WikiLeaks—which is a web site that publishes and comments on leaked documents concerning alleged corporate and government misconduct—plans on releasing a host of new classified information and videos that highlight the crimes and corruption taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Although Jonsdottir, Assange's spokesman, would not reveal any specifics, she spoke with determination. She said: "This information relating to war crimes must be accessible to the public," said Ms. Jonsdottir. "So, we're being extremely aggressive in trying to outsmart our foes."
She continued, "We've taken the model of corporate tax havens and reversed it. Whistle blowers need transparency without being gagged, while at the same time ensuring their anonymity. Our earlier video, Collateral Murder, was only the tip of the iceberg. We have ISPs [Internet Service Providers] all over the world, and none of the data is centralized in the hands of any one single person."
Perhaps the high and mighty should be worried. The 2007 Collateral Murder video showed an American Apache helicopter brazenly killing 12 citizens, journalists and at least one child in Baghdad.
Following the release of the video, international human rights groups have called for war crimes charges to be brought against the pilot and gunner of the U.S. attack helicopter.
WikiLeaks has also posted Bilderberg reports, Church of Scientology insider documents, and other sensitive exposés on 9-11, Gitmo, China, the United Nations and the Iraq War.
More alarm bells were rung when 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning forwarded 260,000 pages of confidential documents to WikiLeaks.
Manning unwittingly admitted to government informer and Internet hacker Adrian Lamo that it was he who unveiled the Collateral Murder footage.
As a result, tech journalist/editor Xeni Jardin wrote on June 7 that Manning "was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division and is being held in custody in Kuwait."
Around this same time, Assange went missing. Shortly before his disappearance, Tom Arup of The Age newspaper reported on May 17 that customs officials confiscated Assange's passport at a Melbourne airport, while Australian federal police later ransacked his luggage.
Due to this type of increased harassment, Assange cancelled a speaking engagement in Las Vegas. Meanwhile, Philip Shenon of the online news site, The Daily Beast, cited a U.S. official on June 11, who was attempting to determine Assange's secretive whereabouts. "We'd like to know where he is; we'd like his cooperation in this matter," said the official.
This benign statement cannot fully conceal the Pentagon's sense of urgency, especially when gauged by one of Manning's correspondences with cyber-snitch Lamo prior to his arrest.
"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available," said Assange in his email.
Shortly after Manning's identity as a whistleblower became known, a WikiLeaks online message conveyed the situation's gravity.: "It looks like we're about to be attacked by everything the U.S. has," read the note posted on the web site.
PENTAGON PAPERS II?
In a June 17 article, Marc Ambinder, politics editor for The Atlantic, referenced another famous whistleblower from the early 1970s.
"Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg said of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that in the age of U.S. leaders, Assange has reason to fear arrest, kidnaping, rendition, torture and even death at the hands of the U.S. government."
The Pentagon Papers contained thousands of pages of highly classified documents detailing the true history of Washington's bloody war in Vietnam. They were leaked by Ellsberg in 1971.
Ellsberg further explained in a June 11 televised interview with Dylan Ratigan, "President Obama, who came in promising transparency in government and the end of excessive secrecy, has totally violated that pledge."
He added, "As I look at Assange's case, I would have to say it puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger. I think Assange would do well to keep his whereabouts unknown."
Ms. Jonsdottir undoubtedly realizes the perils facing her colleague, especially the possibility of a convenient "suicide" or "accident."
As she told this writer: "These people will use creative methods to detain Julian. He's taking every security precaution, but he can't remain in hiding forever.
But no matter what, we will not be silenced. Similar to Daniel Ellsberg, history will view Bradley Manning and Julian Assange as heroes."
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|
While the 1980s and 1990s were dominated by optimistic reports and government statements on the contributions of illegal aliens, reality had to be faced soon. The three states—California, Texas and New York—harboring the most illegal aliens in America financially collapsed by the weight they chose to carry. They built up giant welfare programs, they paid for the education and incarceration of the aliens who filled their schools and jails and they watched the closures of large numbers of hospitals that were forced to care for the aliens by law. Some counties in Arizona spent as much as 30 percent of their health budget on illegals.
The constant injection of millions of illegal aliens have weakened and undermined the financial balance of all the U.S. border states to a degree where most of them are presently close to bankruptcy and suffer the financial effects of lowered credit ratings. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that the approximately two million illegal aliens cost $4.7 billion a year in Texas alone. The estimate incorporates the medical, educational and incarceration expenses spent on the aliens but no one can place a dollar value on a degraded society where the White working class was literally chased out of state by the dramatic reduction of wages and businesses that moved away.
Orderly cities were replaced by chains of crime-ridden third world slums. There are 1,880,000 jobs lost by Americans to illegal aliens every year (FAIR) and the aliens' lower wages are subsidized by taxpayer resources making big business the ultimate winner and American society the ultimate loser in this game. Walmart was employing close to 1.2 million people in 1993 and regularly educated her low paid employees on how to tap into welfare and Medicaid resources to subsidize their income. Federal agents raided 61 stores in 21 states in 1993 and arrested hundreds of illegal aliens hired by the company.
In 1994 California paid $215 million to deliver 74,987 anchor babies for illegal aliens and the total number in the U.S. was approximately 300,000 for that year. After birth comes education, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, incarceration and the millions of relatives who cannot resist the invitations.
By the early 1990s the situation was clearly getting out of hand in California and the "Save Our State" (SOS) Proposition 187 was set into motion by Ron Prince, an accountant in Orange County in 1994. At the time around half of all illegal aliens arrested along the 2,200-mile U.S.-Mexican border were arrested on a 14-mile stretch in San Diego, Calif. Proposition 187 was approved by 59 percent of the voters—over five million votes—after thousands of citizens donated their time to collect the hundreds of thousands of signatures to place it on the ballot. The main goal was to take public benefits away from illegal aliens and deny schooling to their children—a reasonable action if we consider the state's white population was being dissolved and replaced by the aliens.
However, Proposition 187, which reflected the will of the majority of the voters, was sabotaged by Federal Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, who declared the measure unconstitutional, and Gov. Gray Davis, who stopped appeals in the legal process. As a result, a number of absurd cases surfaced in the following years. After waiting at the San Diego border crossing, a woman ran across the border, grabbed a lamppost and delivered a new "American citizen" in front of a video camera. Mexicans were running across the border on the I-5 freeway in California along the center divider among the moving cars and crossed the border by the hundreds in front of federal agents. An agency of the California government paid for billboard advertisements in Mexico that promised free medical care in California to all.
This is how California, the Golden State of the 1980s, was turned into the Slumlord State of 2010, constantly fighting off creditors, unable to pay state employees and dancing on the edge of a knife to avoid bankruptcy.
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|
GREAT NEWS: the Senate committee that is currently working on a compromise Wall Street reform bill to reconcile with the House version has agreed to expand an audit of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve.
While still not a total probe of the Federal Reserve System, the measure is being sold as a first step toward complete transparency of the U.S. central bank. Both the Senate and the House have already passed legislation that is intended to rein in the casino-like behavior on Wall Street. However, these two bills are noticeably different and have to be worked out in committee.
The House's version would mandate multiple audits of the Fed's discount windows and open market dealings, which would shed light on the Federal Reserve's lending activity with U.S. and foreign banks. On the other hand, the Senate's bill calls for only one audit.
Legislators are now hard at work on a compromise bill that addresses the disparities.
According to published reports, senators in committee have agreed to allow repeated audits of the Fed's key functions. This will finally give the American public a window into how the central bank works to benefit the "banksters" themselves.
No one knows the exact details yet. But populist Americans are optimistic that whatever comes out of committee is going to impact the speculators and traders on Wall Street, who have driven the U.S. economy to the brink of collapse.
One online commentator remarked on the bill: "The details of the final proposal are still being worked out, but momentum is with advocates of Federal Reserve transparency."
That is good news.
But even better news is the fact that, according to a new analysis by one of the largest banks in the world, the proposed Wall Street reforms will cost Wall Street as much as a quarter of its annual profits.
Citigroup reports that Goldman Sachs could lose as much as 23 percent of its profits when financial reform passes. Morgan Stanley could lose nearly 20 percent. JP Morgan is facing a hit of 18 percent, and Bank of America could see up to 16 percent of its gains disappear over night.
The losses are attributed to increased regulations that will force financial firms to cough up more of their own money to back the bets they make. There are also a host of new fees and taxes that will go in effect, which the money trust will have to pay.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The corporate media is all abuzz about the General McChrystal flap, with Obama ordering him home from Afghanistan to face a dressing down and then dismissal because of some criticisms the general made in a magazine article about U.S. strategy.
Well, what is the correct strategy? As we have said before, there is one and only one correct strategy, and that is to get out. Get out now or America will have one more no-win war in its portfolio.
This is true because there is no way to win in Afghanistan. Thus, no matter how many soldiers we lose or how much the taxpayers bless the military-industrial-banking complex, this is another no-win war that will drag on indefinitely.
So far, 1,132 U.S. soldiers, many of them in the prime of their lives, have been needlessly killed and many more wounded, some of them horribly, and they will spend the rest of their lives without limbs or a face or otherwise shut away from parades and media enthusiasts, unable to exult over how many of Afghanistan's people have been similarly killed or wounded. And that number is just the official one. Many more die later from injuries, illness and suicides, much of it battle-related.
Ever since Alexander the Great failed in Afghanistan, no country, including Russia and England, has been able to bring the fierce Afghani tribesmen down, and we certainly can't do so either, regardless of the brilliant strategists who write or regale us on television with their wisdom. Only Genghis Khan was able to conquer the country in the 13th century, but he had to commit genocide to do it.
As we have said so often before, America's correct strategy militarily is that laid down by the Father of our country, George Washington,* who strongly warned the U.S. to stay out of the affairs of other countries and pay attention to making America better. ——
To find out whatWashington said about foreign interventionism and other topics—including his "Farewell Address"—get George Washington's Speeches and Letters, published by AFP. Softcover, 75 pages, $12.50. Send payment with request to AFP, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #100,Washington, D.C. 20003.
Willis A. Carto is the founder of LIBERTY LOBBY (1955), The Spotlight newspaper (1975) and THE BARNES REVIEW historical magazine (1994), for which he acts as editor and publisher. For a sample copy (editor's choice) of THE BARNES REVIEW, send $5 to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Mention you would like a sample issue.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The Senate and the House have reportedly agreed to a host of new, highly provocative sanctions targeting companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran.
While Iran is a net-exporter of crude oil and natural gas, it imports refined gasoline and other petroleum-based products.
At the behest of Israel, Congress wants to go after companies around the world that do business with Iran in an effort to cripple its energy sector. AFP has already reported on this provocative proposal, which would require a naval blockade to enforce. Supporters of Israel want the U.S. military to carry this out.
In April, when the House was first debating the measure, Rep.
Ron Paul (R-Texas) spoke out in opposition to the bill: "This
legislation, whether the House of Senate version, will lead us
to war on Iran," said Paul. "The sanctions on this
bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them,
are in themselves acts of war according to international law."
|Top|
Legislators are reportedly turning on the military-industrial-banking complex and its push for perpetual war. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently testified before Congress in an attempt to calm down a growing number of critics on Capitol Hill, who are just now realizing theat the United States is not winning the war in Afghanistan - which means we're losing.
Despite the misgivings from key senators, Gates soldiered on and did his best to paint a rosy picture of the war.
The U.S. military is not losing, said Gates, despite the appearance that the rag-tag Taliban fighters have been making gains in parts of the mountainous country despite the best efforts of the well-funded U.S. Armed Forces
"I think that we are regaining the initiative," said Gates. "I think that we are making headway."
But some in the Senate weren't having any part of it. "We've committed so many lives, so much money, here, and we've neglected so many things inside the borders of the United States," said Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in response to the Pentagon chief.
U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $300 billion
for the war, and at least 1,000 lives have been lost in the conflict
which is now considered the longest war the country has ever
fought.
|Top|
Instead of trying to cap the Gulf of Mexico's oil "volcano," what if British Petroleum (BP) actually wants the flow of oil to keep going until their relief wells reach it?
Since BP already has spent so much time and money tapping into what is alleged te be on of the largest oil reserves on the planet, BP may never again have access to this unimaginably large underwater oil supply due to the uproar created by its environmental catastrophe.
Thus, closing the underwater gusher now could mean never again having such an opportunity. So, despite the ecological impact, they may be allowing the crude oil to keep spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.
Although such a notion sounds deplorable, especially when seeing the gulf region's devastation, geologist Robert K. Denton posed this possibility during a June 15 interview with longtime radio talk show host Keith Hansen.
In a subsequent follow-up interview with this writer on June 16, Hansen broached the topic of whether BP capitalized on a known "nightmare rig," Deepwater Horizon, or if the possibility of deliberate sabotage existed.
"There shouldn't be a rush to judgement," he began. "Instead it's better to use a wait-and-see approach. But I'm always suspicious of anyone who says oil isn't plentiful. I don't think it's finite resource in any way, shape or form."
Hansen next referenced a mid-1980s Wall Street Journal article that mentioned an oil field near the Louisiana coast that expanded in size after being tapped. He explained the big-picture ramifications.
"Oil is being artificially constricted to keep prices high," SAID Hansen. "The whole idea of being held captive by oil is another justification for us to stay in the Middle East.
Former AFP editor Jim Tuxker confirmed this notion in a recent report on the 2010 Bilderberg meeting in Spain. Tucker wrote:
Gas prices will be allowed to drop for the summer months to pacify the public over the BP oil spill, but will kick back up to at least $4 a gallon, according to Bilderberg plans. To help this, Bilderberg will keep oil production at only 80 percent of capacity.
If President Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling in the gulf survives on appeal of a negative ruling by a federal judge, other energy companies will vacate the region, leaving BP or another transnational company that acquires them with a monopoly on this vast oil pocket.
In addition, by not allowing the Dutch and 17 other countries to assist in the cleanup, the Gulf has effectively become off limits to domestic drilling. Is this why BP insisted on pathologically low-balling their oil flow estimates? By initially keeping the figures at a level where no sense of urgency existed, it impeded response efforts during the first crucial month of this disaster.
Furthermore, during Obama's June15 Oval Office address, he spent one–third of his speech pushing "cap and trade" legislation. Coincidentally, an initial major supporter of this bill was none other than BP. Plus, since BP served as one of Obama's largest campaign contributors in 2008, could we be seeing a very complex bait-and-switch operation?
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is famous for saying, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." In this regard another scenario comes into play. Asian Journalist Chen Zhu reported on June 17 that Chinese oil companies "smell blood in the BP disaster" and are "circling over BP assets."
Moreover, a may 26, 2008, Bloomberg article noted that Edmond de Rothschild purchased a 15.3 percent stake in the Zhonghai Fund Management Company, which is the China National Offshore Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) largest shareholder. CNOOC is named as one of the competing interests in acquiring BP if it goes bankrupt.
Similarly, another member of this family, David Rothschild, admitted that last year's Copenhagen Summit was "more about global governance rather than global warming."
Prophetically, England's Lord Christopher Monckton warned on Oct. 14, 2009 that the Copenhagen conference was an attempt to "impose a communist world government."
Radio talk show host Frank Whalen contends that any type of global environmental bill will not pass until cap and trade is ratified in the United States.
This quandary leads to the crux of a rather nasty predicament. What if BP declares bankruptcy, thereby forcing U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill? As America is pushed further toward the brink, of economic collapse, globalists will be making their next crucial move.
Matthew Thayer of the Chico Conservative Examiner wrote on June 1 how BP may constitute "a fall guy creating an environmental crisis to fill the void left by the waning theory of global warning. What does a multi-billion dollar company matter when trillions are at stake? BP is merely a financial chess piece sacrificed as means to a much more lucrative end - environmental laws and treaties designed to take away individual property rights and forever secure global governance."
The BP-Obama connection is so pervasive that in June 2009 Interior secretary Ken Salazar appointed Sylvia Baca to a post under Elizabeth Birnbaum, then director of the maligned Minerals Management Service (MMS). When Birnbaum fell on the sword and resigned after the oil spill scandal, Baca - who worked at BP for eight years prior to this assignment - remained.
Considering BP's firsthand knowledge of their faulty oil rig equipment, CEO Tony Hayward's sake of stock prior to this disaster, their abysmal cleanup efforts and financial ties to the Obama administration, everyone should ponder the possibility of sabotage or an inside job in regard to the April 20 explosion.
Is the entire drama being played out before us nothing more than a sham?
Or, as Keith Hansen asserts, "If this whole thing was
rigged, big Oil will always win."
|Top|
Sadly, the disaster in the gulf continues this week as British Petroleum's efforts at containment keep hitting snags and residents along the coast scramble to clean up and defend their shores and wildlife. Many have criticized the federal government in the past weeks for not doing enough. The reality is there is only so much government can do to help, yet a lot they can do to prolong the problem and misdirect the pain.
For example, in the interest of "doing something" the administration has enacted a unilateral ban on offshore drilling. This is counterproductive. I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban. Why punish other oil companies and their hard-working employees who had nothing to do with this disaster, and who have better safety records?
And, as usually happens after disasters, countless people - even officials in local and state government - have come forward who know what needs to be done and are willing to help, but have been stymied by federal bureaucratic red tape as the oil gushes.
The real problem is not so much a lack of government assistance, but government getting in the way of those who have solutions. We witnessed the same phenomenon during hurricanes Katrina and Ike. It seems government's main role in these situations is to find excuses to stall relief, hold meetings and press conferences, waste money, punish the wrong people and over-regulate.
Yet even after many examples of past incompetence, people still look to government to solve problems in the wake of disasters. A government that tries to be all things to all people might engender a lot of learned dependence, but ultimately it only harms the very people it is supposed to serve as they wait helplessly.
Government could help by holding the appropriate parties fully liable for damages and clean-up costs. I am hopeful that efforts to do this are genuine and BP is indeed held responsible for all damages, not shielded by liability caps or reimbursed under the table by taxpayers. Unfortunately, a large sum of taxpayer money has been slipped into the upcoming supplemental bill for gulf cleanup costs that should fall on BP. Taxpayers should not have to bail out a major oil company that has caused this horrible damage to our shores.
It should be noted that BP is not exactly a bastion of free market capitalism. Rather, they are vested in acquiring government subsidies, favorably slanted policies and competition-hobbling regulation. BP has even been a major lobbying proponent of cap-and-trade because of certain provisions in the legislation it could profit from.
Considering who lobbies for them and what they lobby for, my concern is that attempts to hold them strictly and fully accountable could end up being nothing more than a shell game, with taxpayers ultimately holding the bag.
If the government's idea of action in crisis is to punish the innocent, bail out the guilty and raise prices at the pump on everybody, we should want them to do less, not more.
Recent polls show sharply waning support for offshore drilling.
We still need oil, and a lot of good jobs depend on oil production.
It is crucial to the functioning of our economy. But if accidents
continue to be handled this way, it is easy to understand why
so many see more cost than benefit to off-shore drilling, and
that is also a tragedy.
|Top|
With officials finally admitting that the evidence has been destroyed, it now appears that one of the great mysteries of the 9-11 saga will never be solved - that being just exactly which individuals or groups had enough information to cause the inordinate amount of sales of "put options" on both American and United Airlines the day before the staged attack.
On Monday, Sept. 10, 2001, 4,516 "put options" predicting a lower future price were placed on American Airlines compared to only 748 "call options" predicting a higher price. The precious Thursday and Friday the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) saw purchases of 4,744 "put options" on United Airlines but only 396 "call options." This amounted to more than six times the norm.
At 8:46 a.m. on "Black Tuesday" morning, American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the World trade Center's (WTC) north tower. Seventeen minutes later United Airlines flight 175 hit the south tower. Airline crashes always cause the company's stock to go down.
Economic Policy Journal editor Robert Wenzel has suspected the CBOE of destruction of stock option records for years and now writes that, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request by another editor, the Securities and Exchange Commission has confessed.
The SEC's reply to SmartCEO editor David Callahan's FOIA letter said:
"This letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the Sept.11 Commission Report. We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed."
Wenzel checked with a Chicago contact and reported,"My source is an employee at the CBOE, who told me that, just days after the 9-11 attack, government officials (or at least individuals purporting to be from the government) met with the president of the CBOE and told him to stop the investigation into who purchased the options. The records were destroyed, according to my source."
Wenzel writes, "Now, we have confirming evidence from the SEC itself of destruction of these type of documents that they may have had in their possession. It is extremely heavy circumstantial evidence that the persons who bought these ‘put options' knew in advance of the 9-11 attack. If ever a congressional inquiry was required, this certainly appears to be the case.
Now, fast-forwarding to the Gulf of Mexico on disaster and following the solid research by online writer Darren Weeks, many early reports over the past two months appear to be bearing some fruit.
Weeks asks if the numerous and highly profitable financial and business transactions that took place in the days, weeks and months prior to the rig explosion were just a "coincidence."
How is it that stock in BP and TransOcean suddenly seemed so unattractive to those closest to the disaster?
Amongst the documented incidents, too numerous to fully include here, we find:
Not only did Goldman Sachs "short" shares on TransOcean, the owner of the failed Deepwaer Horizon drilling rig, only days before the explosions rocked the gulf rig (thereby grabbing major profits from the huge disaster just as it had previously done with both 9-11 and the housing buble); but Goldman also dumpted over four and half million shares of BP at a value of $250 million. This amounted to 44 percent of its holdings. AFP reporter Victor Thorn detailed this unusual market activity in the June 28 edition of AFP.
TransOcean itself took out a $560 million insurance policy on the Deepwater Horizon rig. The dollar amount was well above the rig's value. According to British reports, insurance payouts amounted to a $270 million profit from the disaster.
"The windfall, revealed in a conference call with analysts, will more than cover the $200 million that TransOcian expects to pay to survivors and their families and for higher insurance costs," The London Times online reported.
A well-known Bilderberger, Peter Sutherland, the chairman of Goldman Sachs International, also served as Chairman of BP until last year.
Other asset management firms sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter, but their sales were far less tan Goldman's. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,125,566 shares.
"If that weren't enough of a ‘coincidence'," says Weeks,"we also had The Telegraph out of London reporting that the chief executive of BP, Tony Hayward also sold 223,288 shares, worth over $2 million of stock in his own company on March17 - only weeks before the BP Gulf mess. The paper noted that by doing so he ‘avoided' losing more than $614,449 when BP's share price plunged after the oil spill began.
Yet there is even more. Only 10 days prior to the blowout, it was learned that Halliburton was in the process of acquiring Boots & Coots, will known for putting out some of the world's largest oil and gas fires. The company's expertise includes deepwater application and well inspections, as well as blowout prevention. According to The Orlando Sentinel, their services are already in use in the Gulf, as they are"one of two primary companies designing relief-well strategies for the BP blowout."
The deal was cemented only hours before the biggest blowout
in history, and Halliburton - the company notorious for profiting
from no-bid government contracts in war zones - will have miraculously
positioned itself for yet another huge profit.
|Top|
Dangerous bill will ‘cap' our earnings and ‘trade away our futures.
The American people have priorities. In many cases, the priorities of the American people conflict with those of government leaders. Although that seems hard to believe with our so-called participatory system of government, it just happens to be so. In fact, it seems that this "conflict" is growing wider, and much more serious.
A good example of this priority conflict is now staring us right between the eyes: The "Cap and Trade" bill.
This environmental bill is now a top priority for the White House and Congress, but not the American people. The number one priority of the average American people. The number one priority of the average American is a job. The taxpayer is concerned about the economy. Foreclosures and unemployment are still at high levels threatening our national security.
The American people are concerned about illegal immigration, open borders and violence being perpetrated on American families located near our borders. Yet, our federal government turns the other cheek.
Truth is, the federal government is absolutely out of touch with reality.
Let's evaluate this "divide," this "fracture" between the priorities of Washington, D.C. and Main Street USA.
A good starting point is simply that the average American taxpayer ranks environment and climate change very low on his list of priorities. Poll after poll reinforces that fact.
That doesn't seem to bother the big people in Washington. After all, they know what's "best" for us. They maintain that significant action must now be taken to lower the level of carbon emissions in our atmosphere by the year 2050 to 80 percent below what they were in 2005. They will do that by increasing energy prices - dramatically.
Here's their rationale for this new, job-killing "need" that is so "critical" to our health and welfare: By driving up energy prices high enough, it will reduce consumption of energy, thus reducing the amount of carbon contaminants in our atmosphere. Yes, it is as simple an explanation as that.
Let's now analyze it mathematically. American consumers will be forced in essence to pay more for less energy.
It can't miss, folks. Higher energy costs will occur as energy producers cover their rising expenses by raising their prices. Do you really think these beg energy companies will absorb the increases? Are you crazy? They will posture and complain in the press, then pass the increase on to us, the consumers.
Understanding this, the government is not going to be made to take the blame. No, the government disguises much of this thievery and deceit by giving two-thirds of the revenue raised back to the consumers through so-called energy discounts or rebates, which is the so-called off-set ploy.
Don't buy it: This ploy will not come close to compensating consumers for the price increases we will sustain. Capitalism dictates that "higher prices lower consumer demand." This will trigger the inevitable market dynamic that lower consumer demand stops or prevents higher prices, so absorbed, from completely satisfying the new cost of production.
You guessed it. Businesses will then cut production to balance their revenue needs. But that will not be enough. They will also be forced to cut jobs. That will translate into more lost jobs for this country.
I've never totally accepted the findings of the so-called "bi-partisan" congressional budget office. However, even the organization maintains that "job losses would further slow our economy and would outweigh any gains in clean energy investments."
Is more unemployment our top priority? Bottom Line: our American economy will be trillions of dollars weaker with this feel-good, climate-saving legislation.
My opponents say that I disregard the needed environmental benefits. Not so. Scientists and climatologists have stated that the "reduction of global temperature will be minimal, if not negligible."
Their rational makes sense. China and India emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the United States and at a growing rate. If that's not enough to hard-boil your eggs, both China and India will not participate. They will not stop or cut back. To boot, the trade winds being the carbon emissions of China and India across to America.
This new "environment-saver"plan will have a bunch of supporters. You see, they'll get guaranteed windfall profits from handouts in the bill: Subsidies, tax credits, all kinds of new programs for special interest groups.
These big energy giants are not afraid of the cost, because they'll simply pass them on to me and you.
I predict that the government and the media will sell this job-killer as a "planet saver." also predict that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will be used to sell this worthless affront to our jobs and pocketbooks.
Let's tell it like it is: This bill is another big tax on energy that will be absorbed and paid for by the American people.
Meanwhile, what about cleaning up our coal? How about mining the massive oil reserves in America that are trapped in shale rock? Did you know that America has a 1,000-year supply of energy under our own soil? It may be even more than that.
Think about it before you swallow this new assault on our jobs and finances. You are already paying property taxes that are higher than your original home mortgage payment. If that's not outrageous, wait until you see your electric bill and fuel costs under this new "planet saver."
It's time to tell these tree huggers to hug this: We can protect our environment by cleaning up our coal. That will create millions of new jobs. Accessing our shale-oil rock will produce years' worth of domestic oil and will create millions of new jobs as well.
We don't need foreign oil. We don't need more worthless feel-good tax bills.
We can solve our energy and environment problems by simply putting Americans to work. We need jobs to mine and utilize our God-given energy resources, and jobs to clean them up.
Didn't we say that jobs were our top priority?
Get back at me.
|Top|
The propagandists for the Israel Lobby, who occupy the Wall Street Journal editorial page while pretending to be journalists, are determined to remove Helen Thomas from the annals of journalism. In case you have already forgotten, a few days ago the distinguished career of Helen Thomas, the 89-year-old doyen of the White House Press Corps, was ended by the Israel Lobby, which made an issue about her opinion that immigrant Jews should leave Palestine and go back to their home countries.
The White House Correspondents' Association fell in line with the demands of the Israel Lobby, and the cowardly president of the organization added the association's disapprobation to that of the neoconservative cabal.
Having removed Helen Thomas from the journalism scene, the Israel Lobby is now working with its agents on the Wall Street Journal editorial page to eliminate the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Society of Professional Journalists.
A nonentity in the world of Journalism, James Taranto apparently is associated with the Wall street Journal editorial page, although Wikipedia reports that he was incapable of graduating from journalism school at California State University, Northridge. On a WSJ web site, Taranto writes: "We've been calling Thomas ‘American journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic' for years," and he asks who would now accept the Helen Thomas award after Ms. Thomas revealed she really was crazy by criticizing Israel.
I would for one. Of course the society of Professional Journalists would never give the award, assuming the distinguished award survives the assault of the Israel Lobby's assassins, to a critic of Israel. Helen excepted, American journalists are cowards. With the concentrated ownership of the corporate media today, no independently minded journalist can have a career in print or TV media. You defend the Washington/Tel Aviv line, or you are out of work.
The absence of independently minded journalists on the WSJ editorial page is an extraordinary change from my days as associate editor of that page. The editorial page editor, Robert Bartley was ambitious and forced himself to tolerate talented colleagues. Mere opinion was not our task. Often we scooped the reporters on the news side of the paper. Our editorials reported new developments and provided factual analysis.
I was hired as Jude Wanniski's replacement. Jude, the WSJ's associate editor, was fired allegedly because the journal's brass caught him handling out election campaign literature on a train platform, but if you believe American journalism was ever that pure, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale,
Jude was fired, because the neoconservatives got rid of him by telling Bartley that Wanniski was over-shadowing him. That was too much for Bob's ego. Jude, beinga real journalist, was objective toward the Palestinians and thus had earned the enmity of the Israel Lobby.
Once Bob was rapidly declining with prostate cancer, neoconservatives engineered the takeover of the editorial page. Today the once proud Wall Street Journal editorial page is a leading apologist for Israeli/American war crimes and police states.
Helen Thomas' opinion that Israelis should stop stealing the villages, homes and lands of Palestinians, while confining Palestinians to the equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto, is equated by the WSJ's Taranto to the advocacy of "ethnic cleansing" by Helen.
Of course, it is the Israelis who are doing the ethnic cleansing. Many Jews have documented Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, such as Uri Avnery, a former member of the Israeli terrorist organization, Irgun. Ilan Pappe, Israel's most distinguished historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and the Israeli peace group, ICHAD, who have been my house guests. The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, is far more critical of Israeli policy than Helen Tomas and so is MIT professor Noam Chomsky, the distinguished British Journalist and film maker John Pilger, and the distinguished scholar, Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors. But Taranto prefers picking on an 89-year-old "adversary."
Israel is an unnatural state. It was created by terror that was accommodated by craven British and U.S. "diplomacy." Israel ixists for one reason only: the U.S. government provides the money, weapons and diplomatic protection. Any other government that murdered thousands of civilians in other countries, as Israel does routinely in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, would have its entire government and military on trial before the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. Israelis have no worse enemy than their own government.
Every time the rest of the world tries to hold the Israeli government accountable for its crimes, the U.S. vetoes the UN resolution. America has become the enabler of the Zionist-hijacked Israeli government. And the Israeli government knows it. Israel government leaders have publicly bragged for decades about their control over the U.S. government. U.S. Admiral Tom Moorer, chief of naval operations and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after whom the F-14 "Tomcat" jet fighter was named, declared publicly: "No American president can stand up to Israel." Apparently no American journalist can either.
I suggest relocating the Israelis in the U.S., but this idea is rhetorical. But why not insist that the Israelis who are heavily dependent on U.S. assistance, at least reform? Why should Americans support an apartheid racist state that denies citizenship to the rightful inhabitants? What kind of morality, if any, does the Wall Street Journal editorial page represent when it defends Israelis who force Palestinians into ever-shrinking ghettos, deprived of water, food, medical care and schools? Why must Palestinians live in dread of Israeli bulldozers arriving to flatten their homes in order to create space for Zionist "settlers."
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has fallen int the low ranks of "Brownshirt" propaganda. The fact that management tolerates the continuation of totally nonobjective journalism shows why print newspapers are failing everywhere.
And to think that Taranto, a mere propagandist who will never
come close to the league in which Helen Thomas resides, thinks
that he is fit to pass judgment on a real journalist.
|Top|
A Washington state gun rights organization is elated over its landmark federal court victory, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court's five-to-four ruling on June 28 that overturns Chicago's handgun ban "clearly shows that the right of the individual citizen to have a gun is constitutionally protected in every corner of the United States."
That's according to Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) President Alan Gottlieb. While some corporate media have called this decision a reversal of Chicago's "firearms" ban, it strictly deals with handguns. "In striking down Chicago's handgun ban, and incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so it applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the high court affirmed that a constitutionally protected civil right cannot be arbitrarily regulated as though it were a privilege," Gottlieb stated in a news release.
This McDonald vs. City of Chicago case was named for plaintiff Otis McDonald. The SAF news release added that the decision "marks another important Second Amendment victory for attorney Alan Gura, who also successfully argued the Heller case in 2008," referring to Dick Heller of Washington, D.C., who fought to overturn the district's handgun ban.
This time around, Gura represented the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Mr. McDonald, three other Chicago residents and the SAF. ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said the ruling "has ended the years of oppression of law-abiding gun owners by the city of Chicago," as quoted in the SAF release.
SAF spokesman Dave Workman told this editor on June 29 from his Bellevue, Wash. office that McDonald extends Heller across America. Workman, senior editor of Gunweek magazine, said Heller determined that the Second Amendment applies to the "federal enclave" known as the District of Columbia and that D.C.'s handgun ban was thus unconstitutional.
McDonald in effect extends Heller to apply to "San Francisco, Missoula, Milwaukee" and everywhere else, Workman said, adding that states [and their localities] such as Arizona, Washington and Montana with strong firearms protections in their own constitutions may be less affected and those like California that lack such provisions may be more affected.
Gottlieb stated that average Chicago residents like McDonald "will now enjoy the same right of self defense as a squad of bodyguards provides to Mayor Richard Daley. Now we can work to lower the deplorable violent crime rate in Chicago, something that the anti-gun mayor's policies have been unable to accomplish."
Contacted by AFP, Charles E. Rice, a Notre Dame professor emeritus of law, responded favorably to what the ruling generally accomplished but expressed reservations about the theory behind it.
"It's the right result for, theoretically, the wrong reason," said Rice.
Referring to the SAF's statement about "incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so that it applies to state and local governments" . . . and that "the high court affirmed that a constitutionally protected civil right cannot be . . . regulated," Rice's view is that a "civil right" is typically regarded as something a little different, like "the right to vote," which is the kind of thing the government helps provide and therefore regulates, as opposed to a constitutional right, which is supposed to be a God-given thing that the government is prohibited from regulating, ideally.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the editor for AFP. He and his wife Angie provide photographs and video of the events they cover for AFP. Listen to Mark's radio show at republicbroadcasting.org, Sundays at 7pm central. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE say they will exploit the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to ramrod through legislation addressing claims about cataclysmic global warming that objective scientists agree are spurious. According to a recent report in a mainstream New York daily, a summary of a closed-door Senate Democratic caucus meeting, leaked to the press, reveals that Democrats are seeking to use the spill as leverage to force Republican support, essentially saying that failure to vote for a climate change bill that is loaded down with new oil drilling regulations is a vote for Big Oil polluters.
In recent reports, AFP reporter Victor Thorn has been making the case that the internationalists see the disaster as an ideal time to force through new global climate change laws that will be profitable for them. What the Democrats are really going for is something known as "cap and trade." In a nutshell, this involves bureaucrats setting carbon-emission standards on all U.S. factories. That is the "cap" portion of the plan. The "trade" part comes into play when factories cannot meet the levels set by government regulators.
Those corporations will then have to turn to others, who meet or come in under the emissions standards that have been imposed upon them. The companies that exceed their government-imposed standards will then be able to purchase or trade other companies' remaining emissions levels so as to raise their own.
A new breed of carbon capitalists on Wall Street are already champing at the bit to create a market for "cap and trade," whereby corporations will be able to trade emissions levels like they buy and sell commodities or swap stock. Of course, slash-and-burn speculators will also be able to get in on the horse trading, betting on futures and formulating exotic derivatives based on who will and will not be able to meet government imposed levels.
That is grounds enough for voting against cap and trade. However, the bigger problem stems from what the program will do to American business.
Heavy taxation and onerous regulations have already driven many corporations out of the United States in search of cheap or slave labor and limited government, where they can make a profit. Meanwhile, those patriotic companies that have chosen to stay in the United States will face even more complex regulations. In a continuing cycle that further squeezes domestic industry, the costs will be passed down to Main Street, making it even harder for consumers in the United States.
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|
After passing a $787 billion stimulus package, bailing out banks and insurance companies, taking over segments of the auto industry and passing socialized healthcare legislation, not to mention rumors of nationalizing Big Oil, the government has now set its sights on resuscitating the failed mainstream media.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released a 47-page draft entitled "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism" that recommends less than a direct subsidy of $3.5 billion to failing newspapers such as The New York Times.
In a June 10 editorial for The Washington Times, Mark Tapscott called this move an attempt "to rescue old media being left for dead by formerly paying customers."
During a June 24 interview, this writer asked Hank Albarelli, author of the book A Terrible Mistake, which documents secret U.S. intelligence experiments during the Cold War, to convey his thoughts on this matter.
"Who even said journalism needs to be reinvented?" asked Albarelli. "Mainstream media is in the death throes, and it can't survive because they've lost so much credibility. People want reliable news, not stories that are twisted, slanted, biased or ignored. Just because The New York Times prints something doesn't make it true."
If billions of FTC dollars are at stake, especially considering Obama's thin-skinned demeanor, it's fairly certain that funds will be funneled to lapdog media venues and not those pursuing their role as watchdogs.
Albarelli concurred: "The government will play favorites; that's politics. But let's be clear: the government can barely run itself. They need to stay away from the press and quit wasting taxpayer money. Plus, I'm sure none of those funds would be going to the alternative media."
Another aspect of the FTC plan is to establish an AmeriCorps journalism division for students on college campuses. When asked if inclusion of such language reflected a none-too-subtle indoctrination process, Albarelli responded, "It sounds like infiltration. We know from Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article that the CIA has agents at every newspaper, magazine and television network. William Colby also admitted that the CIA is associated with every serious media outlet in the country."
He continued, "In a Machiavellian sense, directly paying to train college students could be the government's way of getting someone on the inside as a future asset. The media would become institutionalized—even more beholden to the government than they already are."
The FTC report also describes antitrust exemptions that allow news organizations to collude with competitors and collectively set prices.
Albarelli sneered at this notion. "Isn't the press already monopolized by five or six huge corporations?" he asked. "This legislation would make the situation even worse, with the potential to completely erase any sort of adversarial relationship between media and government. We're not getting much sincere information from the mainstream media anyway. They've completely given up on real investigative reporting."
Spearheading the FTC's campaign is self-professed neo-Marxist professor Robert McChesney, founder of a media advocacy group called "Free Press." McChesney reveals his vision of a totalitarian takeover with the following quotes:
? "Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism."
? "There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."
In this regard, if the government defines who reports the news, they'll ultimately be able to determine what is reported. The First Amendment can't survive if the federal government intrudes upon and regulates this process. Or, as Albarelli concedes, "Our Constitution will go right out the window."
Although the FTC used a benign form of rhetoric in its draft, they know there's a reason why people aren't buying establishment newspapers any longer. When The New York Times refuses to provide the entire picture, readers invariably resort to more valid sources that aren't afraid to tackle subjects like 9-11 being an inside job, Israeli terrorism secretive Bilderberg meeting and the so-called "Holocaust."
Stacking the deck with blatant subsidies won't alter this situation when citizens increasingly keep bypassing the dinosaur media. This glaringly apparent fact leads to the crux of why the old-guard power structure is so concerned, and why it insists on more regulation. As people repeatedly flee from the "old media," their ability to brainwash, condition, control and propagandize the populace drastically diminishes.
Albarelli doesn't buy into this Orwellian newspeak. "The government's plan to reinvent journalism won't work," he said. "It's a boneheaded idea. No matter how much money they throw at this problem, the mainstream media is on its way out. Short of martial law and shutting down the Internet or alternative news sources, the government can't change the shape of media in the future. People are avoiding them for a reason."
It's yet to be seen what will develop, but one thing is certain: If the government does decide to pad the pockets of certain newspapers, their money will undoubtedly go to ringers such as The Washington Post and not legitimate news venues like AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
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|
The Establishment media never question the falsehoods contrived to deceive us from regaining our sovereignty, and that includes energy independence.
Offshore oil wells produce 2,025,000 barrels per day, 37 percent of all U.S. oil production. We are told we cannot survive without expensive rigs drilling deep into the Earth, often a mile or more under sea level—no matter what the costs or risks.
So our ruling class bleats the same chant: "Drill baby, drill." But is there no other choice?
Every day America's alcohol industry produces more than 600,000 barrels—more than three times the barrels of crude extracted from the Gulf of Mexico's undersea wells. If we used the reserve capacity of existing alcohol plants, we could shut off all the gulf wells and not miss a drop.
Alcohol is a superior fuel to gasoline. It's 105 octane, burns much cooler with less vibration, is less flammable, is 98 percent pollution-free, has lower evaporative emissions and deposits no carbon in the engine or oil, resulting in a tripling of engine life. Specialized alcohol engines can get at least 22 percent better mileage than gasoline or diesel.
Yet, no "responsible" media mention alcohol as a solution to the energy problem. The oil industry fosters lies about alcohol, because once Americans know the facts, their multibillion-dollar enterprise will be as extinct as the swampfuls of prehistoric plant and animal life they claim are the source of the gunk they peddle to us.
Let's not forget oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller. Wasn't he a "good Christian philanthropist" who donated $60 million in today's dollars to the Women's Christian Temperance Union to adopt the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol in the U.S.?
Before Prohibition, Standard Oil had an expensive problem: how to dispose of their refineries' dangerous byproduct, gasoline. Henry Ford's Model T was the original "flex fuel" car, designed to run on farm-made ethyl alcohol. But by the time the 18th Amendment (1919-1933) was repealed, homemade alcohol had been replaced by gasoline.
When gasoline became more than $4 per gallon, the costs of corn-based alcohol were much less. So, speculators artificially raised the price of grain, hurting millions worldwide, while whining, "People will starve if we turn grain into alcohol."
Alcohol can be made from virtually any plant matter, including cellulose. There are a host of plants far better than corn. Examples include agave ("century plant" cactus), which produces 2,000 gallons of distilled alcohol per acre, per year, on desert land, needing no fertilizer and no irrigation. Even our lawn clippings could replace a third of the auto fuel we get from the Mideast.
Corn is only used because Archer Daniels Midland used its clout to get Congress to subsidize corn-based ethanol with tax dollars.
These same "people-will-starve" propagandists for Big Oil haven't shed a tear over the destruction of the vast quantities of gulf seafood—and the financial devastation of those hardworking Americans who used to harvest this bounty—due to greedy pushers of "crude."
While the U.S. and most of the world stagger under the burden of the central bankers' debt-yoke, Brazil is basking in an economic boom because 90 percent of its cars run on alcohol, grown on 1 percent of its land. A return to infinitely renewable alcohol-based fuel would revitalize our economy and free us from dependence on foreign oil and the dangers of Mideast politics. Sweden is on track to have fully alcohol-based vehicles in four years. If the vested interests, Big Oil and Big Banks, their politicians and the controlled media would get out of our way, America could become a prosperous land once again, with much cleaner air and waters.
Oil is not the future; therefore, suppressed energy sources must be harnessed. And right now, Americans are saving on fuel costs—and earning profits providing superior alcohol fuel to their neighbors. You can, too.
Ralph Forbes is a freelance writer based in Arkansas.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The House and the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act (H.R. 2194) on June 24, which hands the U.S. government the power to go after companies that provide refined petroleum products to Iran. It's part of an Israeli-backed effort to starve Iran's economy and force civil unrest in the Persian Islamic state. The bill was originally introduced by Rep Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and, at passage, had 343 House cosponsors.
Iran is a net exporter of oil, but it relies on foreign companies to process its crude and turn it into gas, diesel and other petroleum-based products.
Only eight congressmen had the courage to vote against the bill. They included Reps. Brian Baird(D-Wash.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio.), Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Pete Stark (D-Calif.). Four hundred and eight members of the House voted for the bill. One congressman did not vote, while 16 voted present.
No senator voted against the bill; 99 voted for it. Sen. Robert
Byrd (D-W.V.) was the only senator not to vote, because he was
gravely ill and had been admitted to a Washington hospital, where
he passed away on June 28. He was 92.
The leading pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington - AIPAC, the ADL, the American Jewish Committee and J Street - have all been pushing hard for this bill, going all the way back to the Bush administration. After years of wrangling, the bill finally came to the floor, where it was passed by a Democratic-led Congress and was sent to the White House occupied by a Democrat.
The measure is not going to work, because the United States, hobbled by debt and in the midst of a depression, does not have the global power it one did. Two powerhouses, China and Russia - Iran's two largest oil buyers - have publicly expressed opposition to the bill.
The only way the measure would truly be effective is for the U.S. armed forces to implement a complete blockade of the country, Jut as the U.S. did to Japan in WW II. But that would constitute an act of war - something the Israelis and the American patsies may want, but would be disastrous for the United States.
Despite the fact that White House officials publicly expressed
opposition to the bill, saying it is not helpful and will force
Iran to close down communications even more, Obama is still expected
to sign it. Some last-minute maneuvering allowed White House
officials to waive sanctions against companies on a case-by-case
basis. However, the U.S. commerce Department will still be required
to officially acknowledge that the company is doing business
with Iran in violation of U.S. law, as a pathetic attempt to
humiliate company executives.
|Top|
In the name of national security, any website could be ‘killed'.
New legislation sponsored by Sen.
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) gives Barack Obama the authority to take
over the Internet in the event of a "national emergency."
the Orwellian bill is called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National
Asset Act (S. 3480), and it will even hand the White House the
poser to target specific web sites and shut them down for up
to four months at a time, no questions asked.
Critics are calling the power a "kill switch" over the Internet. How it would work is that the leading companies that manage content on the web, such as Internet service providers, telecommunications companies, software firms - even power companies - will have to comply with orders from the Department of Homeland Security.
Since the Internet is being used more and more to get around
the filters used by the global elitists to control the flow of
information, the ability to shut the web down sets a dangerous
precedent.
|Top|
Bilderberg members pushed hard in a frantic attempt to save the euro during the recent weekend-long economic summit in Toronto, but this action was ignored by the major media, which is under the conrol of the secret group of international financiers and political czars.
"As the euro faces a challenge like none before, the question is whether it will last," wrote Neil Irwin of the Bilderberg-controlled Washington Post way over in Frankfurt, Germany, as heads of state were gathering in Toronto, Canada.
"The debt crisis that began in Greece and menaces half a dozen other European nations has caused the euro to lose 15 percent of its value relative to the dollar since January," he wrote. "Some economists consider it obvious that the currency union will not survive in its present form, that one or more southern European nations will end up reverting to liras, pesetas and drachmas."
What Irwin failed to write is that this is what was being said inside the Toronto G-20 summit.
As we go about our busy lives, the future of the euro and the European Union itself is being addressed in Toronto and Paris, with most leaders acting in unison in an effort to save the euro - which was high on the Bilderbergers' agenda in early June at their secretive meeting in Spain.
Saving the euro appears to be critical to Bilderbergers' overall plans. Their shadowy schemes, to maintain the European Union's role as a single super-state and to create a parallel "American Union" that also would use a continental currency, the "amero," have been seriously set back in recent years. In a glass skyscraper in Paris, a Bilderberg-connected banker named Jean-Claude Trichet and his 16,000 employees are struggling to save the euro and promote the "amero." The European Central Bank is under heavy pressure to save the European currency. So Trichet's bank is buying billions of euros' worth of government bonds in an effort to stabilize markets. But this has generated new tensions as Germany objects, saying it is a violation of the central bank's rules. Unlike Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve, the European Central bank must strictly monitor inflation and is limited in the amount of euros it can loan into circulation.
As the economy fizzled further, Trichet decided that the goal of European unity was more important than the law and presented a compromise: They would buy bonds on the open market (not directly from governments), ducking the prohibition on funding government debt. At the same time, they would take other steps to avoid increasing the money supply, to ease inflationary pressures.
In Toronto, Bilderberg-linked participants strongly supported Trichet's money plan. "It's the only way to save the euro, and without the euro, the European Union falls apart, and the American Union never comes into existence," said one, echoing the agony expressed at Bilderberg's meeting in Spain. "We can't let that happen, ever."
"Euro-area governments have effectively thrown away the rule book," moaned Volker Wiieland, an economist at Goethe-University Frankfurt. "It's a complete regime change. No bailouts and individual fiscal responsibility have been replaced with mutual guarantees" for government debt.
Bilderberg also is reportedly supporting strong international regulations on banks, as a step toward creating a world treasury department, which gained much approval in Toronto.
"The stakes are so high, I think the incentives are high
to sort it out," Wieland said.
|Top|
Toronto - The G-20 weekend confab of financial ministers and political leaders on June 26 and 27 could be seen as one of the lowest points in Canadian history. Most people in Canada are shocked at the events that took place on that weekend - particularly the abusive police tactics and the secretive last-minute law that allowed anyone near the G-20 summit to be stripped of their civil liberties.
The official start of the protests was at Queen's Park, the site of the Ontario provincial government, in Toronto. Despite pouring rain, an estimated 10,000 people attended the early Saturday afternoon event.
The group was diverse - people from every age and walk of life took the time to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly. And the diversity of causes and grievances was just as great - from environmentalists, to 9-11 truth advocates, to die-hard socialists, to organized labor groups.
Early in the day, the promised police presence was there, to be expected with an estimated $1 billion spent on "security" for this summit, but it was not menacing. Most officers gathered far from the crowd. The atmosphere was calm and relaxed, must like most of the protests that happen on a regular basis in this city.
This AFP writer observed that a significant number of people there were "average" citizens, including families with young children.
From this mild start, the city of Toronto became an unprecedented battle zone, even bigger than the violent Seattle protests some years ago. There were more than 600 arrests - the most in Canadian history - even more than during the Quebec crisis. Four police cars were torched and burned in the middle of busy shopping areas. Vandalism was rampant.
The Seattle event, notably, was later revealed to have been attended by rent-a-mobs that deliberately provoked violence to discredit opposition to the summit taking place there,. But it remains to be seen whether that dynamic was at work in Toronto. [Global Research has documented that police provocateurs dressed as "black bloc" anarchists threw chairs into Starbucks coffee shop windows and jumped on police cars to spark violence. The agents' new, standard issue boots with a distinctive yellow mark on the sole betrayed them. -Ed.]
When the police cars were torched, there was absolutely no police presence in the affected area. Many citizens were in danger as the car fires could have blown up at any time. These vehicles burnt for several minutes before police reacted, after viewing the spectacle from a generous distance. It appeared that the authorities were so focused on stopping the protesters from reaching the summit site that they left the general public to their own devices.
Thanks to the Ontario government, a serious violation of civil liberties, which surely angered the protesters and probably contributed to the violence, was put into place shortly before this summit. A new law - or it may be a rebirth of an archaic law - was activated allowing the police to search and arrest people in the conference zone at will. And the police made liberal use of this power.
This writer's sister works in the affected area. She said that many of her co-workers were harassed on the way to work. The authorities stopped them, asked for ID and searched them on a whim. Meanwhile, those who many citizens consider to be some of the world's most diabolical criminals were supping and chatting inside the heavily guarded summit venue.
The demeanor of the police worsened on Sunday, as they began to arrest everyone in some areas - without any charges being laid. That included members of the press, including cameramen. Some members of the media were understandably shocked and angered by this behavior - which was a first in this country.
A news producer from a major mainstream television network was grabbed in one of these sweeps. He was strip-searched and put into a jail cell that he described as "like Guantanamo." In a later interview, the poor guy still looked like he was in shock.
Another prominent Toronto reporter stated that he actually witnessed police brutality directed toward a fellow journalist.
Many of these unfortunate people wound up in a temporary jail, where they were detained for many hours, apparently without the help of a lawyer, water or medical assistance.
It is believed that there will be many lawsuits in the near future directed at the police, who were merely the tools of the internationalists. Lawyers are already lining up to challenge the secretive law in court.
The fact that such police-state tactics were used here is seen as an extremely disturbing development. There have been stories by those arrested that they were handcuffed for long periods of time and humiliated and intimidated by the police and military forces?
It is positive, however, that given the hurdles faced by the protesters, many people had the nerve and confidence to express strong dissent. If the "powers that be" think that this new strategy has acted as a deterrent to future expression, one need only look at the footage of determined activists leaving the jail.
The fallout from these events is still unfolding. The public
outrage is already too great to ignore, and some token officials
will have to fall on their swords.
|Top|
Former top central banker Alan Greenspan believes the United States is fast approaching the limit on its borrowing capacity. "Very soon," he said, Treasury officials will have to price bonds higher in order to woo investors. The end result will be stuck with even more debt - as uf $42,000 for every man, woman and child in this country is not enough.
Washington should take a lesson from Paris. Officials there announced in early June that they would be selling off "excess" properties the French government no longer needs in order to keep the government in business. The central government was offering rock-bottom prices for some 1,700 properties across France.
French Budget Minister Francois Baroin said the properties were too expensive for the government to maintain any longer. They included landmarks and historic building, such as a chateau in the scenic town of Thonon-les-Bains in the French Alps on Lake Geneva.
There is no doubt many bankers and speculators - the very people who stuck France with incredible debts in the first place - will be lining up to get their own piece of French history at the fire sale.
Is this the future for the United States?
Greenspan did not actually say that Washington will soon be forced to pawn historic treasures to the plutocracy in order to keep the country afloat, but there is no doubt it could come to that if Obama and company continue on their multi trillion-dollar borrowing binge.
Still, what Greenspan did say is prescient, considering he is the former head of the privately-owned and controlled "Federal" Reserve. According to the latest figures, the Fed holds 49.37 percent of the U.S. national debt, which officially now totals a little over $13 trillion. The next largest portion is owned by "international investors," who hold 27.90 percent of U.S. debt. The remaining 22.73 percent is owned by state and local governments, insurance companies, savings bond holders and other smaller investors.
In a commentary published recently in The Wall Street Journal, Greenspan painted a bleak picture: "The federal government is currently saddled with commitments for the next three decades that it will be unable to meet in real terms."
The only way Washington will be able to keep from going under, he daid, is to ramp up borrowing.
But the government will not be able to borrow forever, he added. Eventually, investors are going to demand more and more from the government, which will translate into higher rates. Of course, future generations of Americans will be the ones left holding the empty bag.
Ironically, polls show that many Americans inside and outside Washington still believe the country will be able to borrow forever without ever having to face financial consequences.
Greenspan addressed this, writing: "perceptions of a large U.S. borrowing capacity are misleading."
One of the main reasons why there is still demand for official U.S. debt is because other economies in Europe and Asia are supposedly doing so much worse than the U.S. Greenspan believes that could change overnight. America could become the next Greece, it seems. What's Greenspan's solution?
"The United States, and most of the rest of the developed world, is in need of a tectonic shift in fiscal policy," Said Greenspan.
A better solution, that would really anger the bankers, would
be for the Treasury to print its own currency and decree it equivalent
to Federal Reserve notes. Main Street would then have the benefits
of both a stable, sovereign currency and no interest payments
to make to private banks.
|Top|
The American people are totally disgusted with a government that's busted and can't be trusted. Poll after poll reports growing numbers of American citizens who are less than enamored with the federal government. They're suspicious of government statistics and findings.
These dynamics contribute to a stratification and polarization of our country. Working people are tired of paying the bills of a growing number of dependents who literally live off the central government.
Do you realize that 47 percent of eligible taxpayers pay no income tax? That means that the other 53 percent of Americans pay the "progressive" income tax that was the foundation of Karl Marx's communist program. Yes, America's income tax is exactly what Marx designed. But that's an issue for another day.
Today, we discuss only symptoms. The media refers to them as "problems." but they are symptomatic of a greater, core problem: trust.
A growing number of Americans do not trust the government, and that, my friend, is serious business. A participatory republic is actually built on trust. And it's our government; so why should there even be a "trust' issue? It boils down to the political "spin to win" methodology - win at all costs.
Case in point: the economy is supposedly improving. Week after week we are bombarded with facts and statistics that proclaim that "the economy is moving in the right direction," "home sales are up," "consumer confidence is growing," "the bailouts worked," "jobs are growing," and so on.
We'd love to believe that, but for some reason we still seem to harbor doubt: We're just not sure. Something does not ring true.
A recent spin on employment is a good example. Last month the headlines heralded the creation of over 430,000 new full-time jobs. This feel-good message sounded great. That all seemed to fall apart, however, when these seemingly great jobs turned out to be basically government jobs. Over 400,000 or those jobs were census workers. A little less than 30,000 of those jobs were in the private sector.
The government did not exactly lie to us. However, it used numbers to its advantage.
If you never learned of the "true" jobs created your would have accepted that news story as a positive omen of our economy on the recovery.
Unfortunately, here's the truth about jobs: Jobless claims are up; they're sharply, in fact, and layoffs persist.
Recently, initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 12,000 American workers to a seasonally adjusted 472,000 individuals. In addition, home construction plunged in May after government tax credits expired.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to distill and digest these factors. There is little strength, if any, in the private sector's so-called economic expansion. Uncle Sam is the big "employer." Uncle Sam is the big "provider." Uncle Sam is the big "player." Uncle Sam is just giving away money like there is no tomorrow. And we are busting our balsams to pay for it.
It's gotten so bad that Uncle sam is now taxing tanning parlors. If that's not enough to roast your assets, Uncle Sam now wants to tax our stock market losses - yes, losses.
Here's how it will work: big financial firms trade millions of shares, especially when the market seems to be dropping. Uncle Sam is now contemplating how to make money out of our investment losses, placing a tax on each trade of stock.
Uncle sam will sell it under the scenario that it will basically hit only the "big guys," who trade in large volumes. True enough. However, those large firms are handling our stock, as well.
Would this type of tax behavior modification have stopped the reckless gambling that permeated our insurance and banking industries? Absolutely not.
You see, these "big" guys always had a fail-safe plan, contrary to popular analysis. They had a great back-up plan. They knew they would be bailed out.
I believe we should've let the bad banks fail and go bankrupt. Let the good ones survive and absorb the market share of the failed entities.
We also should bail out the Americans who deposited their hard-earned saving in those reckless, greedy banks who are nothing more than Wall Street casinos. The only "bail" they should've received was money for a "bail bondsman."
I'm sure most of you agree Uncle Sam is really careless with our money. After all, Uncle Sam has been through this many times. Uncle Sam can appease the taxpayer by throwing money at the problems.
The truth is, Uncle Sam simply keeps treating the symptoms.
Think it over carefully. Get back at me.
|Top|
Last week we opined that the one and only sane course for our country in Afghanistan was to get out. Or accept it as the biggest no-win war yet.
Since then we have been advised by an observer who wants his name kept out, that there are indeed very big reasons why American troops are there and will stay there and that is not only the extremely profitable heroin trade but also the valuable minerals, including about one trillion dollars worth of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium - with lithium being especially valuable because it is used in batteries for computers and in electric autos.
Per weight, heroin is the most valuable commodity in existence - more valuable than gold. Heroin is a derivative of morphine, which is made from the sap of the poppy flower, which brows abundantly in Afghanistan. It is cultivated there for the international drug trade.
It is extremely habit forming and persons addicted to it will pay any amount to buy it or, once addicted, they are virtual slaves to their supplier.
So, knowing the level of morality of the top politicians in America, it is to be expected that they are making plenty of money from Obama's excursions into Afghanistan which have nothing to do with bringing democracy or other such sacred and uplifting projects there.
To the scum who are directing the carnage, money is uplifting
enough.
|Top|
PHOENIX, Ariz.—What strikes you the most when you speak with Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce is his steely determination to prevail. "Enough is enough," he kept saying, during his July 13 exclusive interview with this writer, referring to the flood of illegal aliens crossing into Arizona from Mexico that he pledges to stop.
Pearce, himself a former Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputy, authored the world-famous law, S.B. 1070, to finally make a genuine effort to stop that flood—which carries human and narcotics trafficking with it and causes a kidnapping wave that is so bad that Pearce is super-anxious for S.B. 1070 to take effect July 29.
That is the 90-day mark since the Legislature passed the bill and Gov. Jan Brewer signed it into law. That is how all approved laws are handled in Arizona—three months from "the pen" to enforcement.
Pearce revealed that he has been trying to pass a law much like S.B. 1070 since at least 2007. With a sigh of relief, he said he's glad it finally came to fruition.
However, the challenges have just begun. Since S.B. 1070's passage last April, even Barack Obama has indicated an allegiance with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, siding with a foreign leader against a law passed by Arizona.
Referring to his state's scary level of kidnappings and human smuggling, Pearce said: "Arizona . . . especially Phoenix, is No. 2 in the world behind Mexico City," adding, "this is an epidemic—a tsunami across this nation."
But this far-from-ordinary law from an extraordinary legislator is causing the expected swarm of lawsuits and controversy. As this AFP edition went to press, a pivotal federal court hearing in Phoenix, in Judge Susan Bolton's courtroom, was slated for July 22, where Bolton will hear arguments from five plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union, whose separate suits were rolled into one larger lawsuit. The Department of Justice filed separately, but all the plaintiffs are seeking a federal injunction to stop S.B. 1070 from taking effect July 29.
"We know we are on firm ground," Pearce said. When asked about the law's chances of survival, he predicted that should this case go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the vote will be 5-4 or 6-3 in his favor.
"The judge will take this under advisement . . . but she has had very little time. She was very critical of the Department of Justice for waiting so long to file," he said of the Phoenix court hearing.
According to Pearce, past court decisions already are on his side. He cited numerous legal precedents in federal court—including the 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th circuits—where cases involving relevant matters were decided favorably from his vantage point. And in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with a stunning 9-0 vote in the Muehler vs. Mena case.
The Western New England College School of Law notes that in this ruling (see second part of it), "(a) it was not unreasonable to handcuff the occupant of a house for two to three hours during the execution of a search warrant for weapons and evidence of gang membership, and (b) the officers' questioning of the occupant about her immigration status was not an intrusion requiring independent reasonable suspicion."
Pearce also pointed out that state and local police can and do enforce the law regarding various federal violations, such as when a state police officer arrests someone for a federal firearms violation. The defendant may be tried in federal court, but the arresting officers do not have to be federal agents. Pearce knows from his 23 years as a police officer that local and state police arrest people who violate federal laws—and immigration laws should be no different.
What the embattled S.B. 1070 does, essentially, is make it a violation of state law to be in Arizona illegally. Pearce referred AFP to his RussellPearce.com web site, where he states:
S.B. 1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states' inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all so-called "sanctuary" policies. . . . It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law 8USC 1324 and 1325.
States have inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and yet have failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 and 1373), yet we have them all over the United States.
The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304[e] and 8 USC 1306[a]). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of "preemption," which means a state cannot adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizonan law avoids this problem.
Broadly speaking, S.B. 1070 reflects a trend that started making big headlines in 2006 when Hazleton, Penn., Mayor Lou Barletta decided that employers hiring illegal aliens and landlords housing them in that eastern Pennsylvanian city would not be tolerated.
Barletta won approval of a city ordinance to target the problem, observing that while immigration issues are embodied in federal law, federal authorities usually are not up to the task of enforcing the law in a consistent and reliable manner.
Thus, the concept of a local government or state government taking decisive action has achieved traction, which is really a bold move toward more local and state independence—a troubling prospect for a highly centralized federal government that only recognizes other authority when some global group, say the European Union or the G-20, wants to make major changes. The states, which created the federal government—and the people, cities and towns within them—do not count.
"We will prevail," Pearce said of the imminent court hearing in Phoenix and whatever else lies ahead. "We're ready for a fist fight. I know what we're up against."
And to charges of "racism" that are routinely heaped upon him by open-borders advocates, this legislator, of American Indian ancestry, replied: "Illegal is not a race; it is a crime."
Pearce added: "This is an epic bill." He compared the situation with the early battle between the so-called federalists who favored a strong central government and the state's rights advocates who did not, during America's founding era. And while citing the $2.7 billion it costs Arizona's taxpayers annually in "hard costs," just to "educate, medicate and incarcerate" illegal aliens, without other costs, such as county jailing and crime victims' costs considered, Pearce declared:
"The states do not need a permission slip to arrest illegal aliens. But we have open-borders anarchists who say otherwise. Enough is enough. The states don't just have the authority, they have an obligation to act."
Pearce told AFP that, by his estimation, 34 states are looking into passing similar laws, of which 20 are showing a strong interest.
"If you look at the polls, this is the most popular bill in the U.S. today," he remarked. Arizonan landowners have been robbed and killed at the hands of illegal aliens, who are not just seeking perceived greener pastures but are, in some cases, involved in violent activities, he said.
"The government is complicit and has blood on its hands, because of the failure to enforce these laws," said Pearce.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the editor for AFP. He and his wife Angie provide photographs and video of the events they cover for AFP. Listen to Mark's radio show at republicbroadcasting.org, Sundays at 7pm central. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Jim Bunker—a soldier in his own right who's fighting to get the mainstream press to even acknowledge a major event he's sponsoring in early August to assist U.S. war veterans—is determined to have a successful conference for veterans from both the current and past Southwest Asian theaters.
Gulf war veterans from the early 1990s Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield, as well as veterans from the 10-year-old Afghanistan conflict and seven-year-old Iraqi conflagration—essentially all vets from 1990 to the present—will come together to share concerns and seek solutions to their problems under the auspices of the National Gulf War Resource Center (NGWRC).
Its Health and Educational Fair for all veterans who served in those conflicts will be held in Dallas—Thursday, Aug. 5, through Sunday, Aug. 8. A number of notable speakers will attend. The guest of honor will be H. Ross Perot, the distinguished American businessman who, as a former presidential candidate, sternly criticized America's adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement. A veteran himself, Perot has remained a staunch supporter of the U.S. military and veterans' causes.
During the event, Perot will be honored with the National Gulf War Resource Center's 20th Anniversary Desert Storm Patriot Award. AMERICAN FREE PRESS has also learned that Doug Rokke (U.S. Army, retired) will speak on the Saturday portion of the event. He's a well-known critic of the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military. This radioactive metal, a byproduct of uranium processing, is used as both a munitions component for penetrating hardened targets and as armor against enemy fire. But when it's fragmented or aerosolized during conflict, it gets into food, water and wounds and respiratory systems of soldiers and civilians. It causes cancer, birth defects and other serious health problems.
Rokke also is a critic of America's interventionist foreign policy, arguing that a string of unjustified wars has produced massive casualties that U.S. authorities barely acknowledge, let alone seek to remedy. This outspoken Vietnam and Desert Storm vet has accused those whose duty it is to help veterans of a constant "delay and deny" stance. The result is a war of attrition against vets who fight to get financial benefits and healthcare, but end up dying or deteriorating beyond help.
Citing Gulf War Veterans Information Systems data, Rokke also points out that war-death statistics commonly reported to the American people are dramatically lower than the real, complete figures. This is because deaths that more or less immediately take place (killed in action) comprise most of the fatalities reported, whereas those soldiers who die later from injuries, illnesses and suicides stemming from their military service are not included in those fatality reports. This, he says, enables the government to hide the real "blood cost" of the current wars.
Other speakers will include Dr. Lea Steele, a researcher and panelist of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, and noted Gulf War Illness (GWI) researcher Dr. Robert Haley of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which, as AFP has reported, recently had much of its GWI research funding pulled by the federal government. The status and future of that funding likely will be a hot topic at the conference. Perot has donated large sums to that institution. At this school, at other Dallas locations and in Washington, D.C., this AFP editor has covered Advisory Committee meetings and interviewed Haley and Steele, as well as Bunker.
The Advisory Committee's official recognition of GWI as a genuine multi-symptom illness took place in November 2008 at the Department of Veterans Affairs headquarters in Washington, which AFP covered.
"The Department of Veterans Affair's War Related Illness and Injury Study Clinic (WRIISC), on the request of the NGWRC, will present information to the veterans about their program. The NGWRC has also set it up for them to visit the Dallas/FortWorth-areaVA facility and put on classes for the staff about Gulf War Illness," Bunker noted in a news release.
He stressed that veterans from the current overseas military operations are in need of help, as are those from previous wars.
"Many thousands of veterans have been afflicted with an array of chronic illnesses directly resulting from their service," wrote Bunker. "Now with the Veterans Administration opening up those covered under Gulf War Illness to veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, there will be a lot of information given out [at the conference] to help them."
Department of Veterans Affairs Chief of Staff John R. Gingrich also will speak, as will Medal of Honor recipient Mike Thornton, psychologist Dr. Peter Maves and several more.
The Health and Educational Fair will take place at the Wyndham DFW Airport North Hotel, 4441 W. John Carpenter Freeway, in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. For more information, including the tentative schedule and registration information, visit ngwrc.org or feel free to contact Bunker by phone at (866) 531-7183, or email jim@ngwrc.org.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the editor for AFP. He and his wife Angie provide photographs and video of the events they cover for AFP. Listen to Mark's radio show at republicbroadcasting.org, Sundays at 7pm central. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
WHILE SOME IN CONGRESS want to cut the military budget, Joe Lieberman, the "independent" Democratic senator who is supposed to represent Connecticut but seems to spend more time representing the Israeli lobby, continues to agitate for more war. In a recent public statement, Lieberman claims he has been told that the Pentagon is ready for war with Iran.
Ironically, Lieberman's views
were published only in The Jerusalem Post. Despite the
fact that he was lobbying to commit our country to yet another
war, his provocative threats were never aired in the mainstream
press in Connecticut or in the nation's capital.
Lieberman, along with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), had flown all the way to Tel Aviv to confer with top Israeli war officials, which included former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, now the country's "defense" minister. Because the junket has just happened, congressional authorities have not released who paid the travel bill.
AMERICAN FREE PRESS will be following up on this matter in the coming weeks, but as is often the case with trips to Israel, it is usually American taxpayers who pick up the tab. According to a study by USA Today in 2009, "fact-finding" trips to Turkey, Israel and other countries in the Middle East are almost always paid for by the taxpayers. On July 7, at a press conference in Tel Aviv, Lieberman, flanked by Israeli officials, openly threatened the Iranian government with war if it continues to pursue its legal nuclear program.
The "threat" from Iran will be handled "through diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions if we can, but through military action if we must," said Lieberman. In the article, The Jerusalem Post editorialized, "Although U.S. officials often say no option should be taken off the table in relation to Iran's nuclear program, this is one of the few times an official of Lieberman's standing has explicitly used the term ‘military action' while in Israel."
As it is now, Iran's program is legal. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under international law, Iran can develop a nuclear program as long as it is not for weapons purposes.
Compare that to Israel, which has never signed the global treaty and continues to maintain a secret nuclear weapons program that many estimates put at between 200 and 400 nuclear-armed missiles.
Despite this, the U.S. government continues to quietly hand Israel nuclear technology and armaments, evidenced by a recent joint U.S.-Israeli document leaked to the Israeli media, which shows new agreements have been made on nuclear weapons. This huge news item made headlines all over Israel, but a search of leading U.S. mainstream media outlets revealed the secret deal was never reported to American non-Jews.
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|
Pedophilia, covert CIA blackmail schemes and massive cover-ups by high-ranking officials and a misleading media - could these sinister-sounding concepts explain why politicians in our nation's capital continue to undermine the United Satates of America with their legislation?
Former FBI agent Ted Gunderson and Nebraska attorney John deKamp have for years publicized this national scandal.
During a July 9 interview, this writer asked Nick Bryant, author of The Franklin Scandal, if elected representatives inside the Beltway are being compromised. He responded, "Blackmail is as old as politics itself. I don't see how it couldn't be happening. I'd say it's a high probability."
In his book, Bryant focuses on Craig Spence, a "Bush the Elder"-era CIA asset who filmed scores of D.C. Politicians engaged in sexual acts with minors. These victims, as the strong allegation goes, all belonged to a nationwide sex ring. The Secret Service, Dick Thornburgh's Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. attorneys, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies ware said to be involved in concealing this cesspool.
If whistle blowers did surface, they were quickly eliminated. For instance, former state police investigator Gary Caradori obtained lurid photographs of D.C.'s elite engaged in illicit pedophile activities. The same day he received these pictures, his airplane was reportedly sabotaged, and he died in a fiery explosion. Bryant verified a "Franklin Affair" body count that has risen to eight known deaths. Are similar tactics now being used against our current president?
Larry Sinclair has publicly acknowledged - at the National Press Club, no less - his homosexual relations with Barack Obama, while also alleging in a recently published book the details of their cocaine use. He likewise depicts some questionable murders of homosexual men at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Chicago church.
An otherwise savvy politician, Obama's bailouts, astronomical spending, refusal to seal the borders, broken peace promises, DOJ corruption and a socialist healthcare debacle all defy logic, threatening his reelection. Conservative puncits blame these inexplicable moves on ideology, but could a more realistic explanation be that if Obama didn't implicitly follow the New World Order's marching orders, he'd not only face impeachment, but imprisonment ir even assassination?'‘
Bryant offers another consideration. "88 percent of Americans don't think Congress is working in their interest. So, whose interests are they working for?
The answer may be that they're working for an agency that uses incredibly dark manipulation techniques.
"There's a documented link between the CIA and the ‘Finders,' who were involved in a host of especially sinister activities - some with children and the occult," said Bryant. "I find it strange that the CIA would come to the assistance of such a notorious group.
Civil rights attorney Charles Bonner, author of The Bracelet, thinks in similar terms.
During a July 8 interview, Bonner related the following to this writer: "Child sex slavery is a $10-billion-a-year industry. For it to survive, it must have assistance from people in government and law enforcement. We've seen a war on crime, a war on drugs and a war on terrorism, but why has there never been a war on child sex slavery? The most innocent members of our society are totally unprotected, with no voice. People need to know that it's happening all around America, and nobody's doing anything about it."
Bryant ended the discussion on the following note: "The mainstream media dowsn't care about how many children have been damaged and the federal government has worked very hard to hide these child-trafficking networks. It's still going on today."
Over the past few decades, there have been innumerable sex scandals in Washington, D.C. On the other hand, how many depraved congressmen are being protected al long as they do the bidding of their psychopathic overlords?
The children in their grip are being destroyed, while our
cuntry suffers a similar fate.
|Top|
Americans have seen their formerly protected rights rapidly evaporate under the guise of "anti-terrorism" since 9-11 and the passing of the misnamed "Patriot Act," but now even the mainstream media are nervous about recent First Amendment abuses along Gulf of Mexico beaches.
And while many "unsubstantiated" reports from the past 10 weeks concerning the behavior of British Petroleum (BP), area police and various officials are now confirmed, reports of rampant pollution may not be telling thefull extent of the story in the gulf region.
While telecasting from New Orleans, CNN's Anderson Cooper was visibly upset by the situation, and Newsweek reported "BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly targeted members of the media and denied them access to the oil-covered beaches."
Film maker James Fox was the first to go public by reporting the intimidation and restriction of information by BP security guards in early June. Shortly after he arrived in Grand Isle, La, he told talk show host Mel Fabregas that he wouldn't have believed it if he hadn't seen it with his own eyes. Not only news reporters but ordinary citizens were being arrested and detained after photographing various beach cleanup activities.
"There was a complete media blackout. No cameras allowed. Clean-up workers were being threatened with loss of their jobs if they even spoke to a newsman on or off camera. "Fox was both angry and frightened. "They call this a free country? There is no freedom of speech. There is no freedom of press. They're even closing down the air space to stop reporters from flying over."
However, Fox was but a voice in the wilderness, as U.S. Coast Guard officials responded to the growing list of other complaints with: "We are looking into it."
Meanwhile, along the Texas coast outside of Texas City, freelance photographer Lance Rosenfield stood on a public road taking photos of a BP refinery. Soon, he was followed by local officers to a store where he was detained while they demanded to see the photos he had just taken. A BP security representative showed up, closely followed by Homeland security official Tom Robison, who did his best to frighten the freelancer int not returning.
Apparently, BP's private security goons are the new "secret police," and they have the help of local and federal law enforcement officials. The public's right to know the truth is being suppressed. Now even local law enforcement is not on the side of the citizenry anymore. They've sold out, according to Mother Jones magazine, and BP is covering the salaries of nearly all the cops working in certain areas there.
Mac McClelland of Mother Jones reported, "One Louisiana parish has 57 extra shifts per week that they are devoting intirely to BP security detail, and BP is paying the sheriff's office."
Following the Independence Day weekend, this American Free Press writer visited Louisiana to talk directly with the locals. We soon hit upon an interesting anomaly: while "terror" regarding the gulf gusher and its effects continues to be spread through the media and Internet, nobody appears to be afraid. The hotels are full from New Orleans to Destin, Fla. Bourbon Street is supplying booze and oysters to its normal amount of summertime revelers and, despite the current "down-side economy," Royal Street shops would be the envy of any retailers in the country.
The talking heads on TV claim that benzene and Corexit 9500 are lurking in the air, about to poison millions, but the people in New Orleans have smelled nothing. During four sweltering days there, this AFP writer didn't smell anything either. Despite the video posted on the Internet in late June showing oil falling with the rain on the streets of New Orleans, we could not find anyone who had actually seen this happen.
"Ah, heck, they just want us to move out again," said Isadore Vance, a cheerful dinner server at a popular French Quarter restaurant, referring to the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. But he admitted that he saw the dreaded tar balls floating in Lake Pontchartrain, which is north of the city and many miles inland from the gulf.
Probably more disconcerting was the eyewitness testimony from James "Bubba" Marchaud, a lifetime resident of Metairie, La. "Those play actors out there on the beach are not cleaning up anything," he said. "They are just covering everything that washes ashore."
He went on to tell AFP what was happening - because he had seen it himself. It was not only a figurative cover-up with the cooperative news media but actually a literal cover-up: the beach workers were merely spreading new sand on top of the tar balls from the oil spill that had been discoloring the beaches.
He also confirmed the rumor of the ridiculous, staged photo-op when President Obama came to southern Louisiana. Five truckloads of workers were unloaded on the beach road where the presidential entourage would be passing.
"Absolutely zero people were on the road to greet him,"
Marchaud said, "and as soon as his fleet of cars went by,
the workers were put back on the trucks and driven away.
|Top|
Two congressmen, while they are polar opposites on the political spectrum, recently penned an open letter calling for significant cuts to be made in the massive U.S. military budget. To call these two the "odd couple" hardly does justice to the differences in their social, economic and olitical outlooks. But there is one thing these legislators agree on: reining in the military-industrial-banking complex.
As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree," wrote U.S. Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas).
Frank is one of three openly homosexual legislators currently serving in Congress along with Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). He advocates large government programs that affect all Americans in all aspects of their lives. Paul, on the other hand, is a libertarian-style conservative, a strict constitutionalist who believes in an extremely limited federal government, low taxes, individual sovereignty and personal responsibility.
Despite their vast differences, they see eye-to-eye on the importance of cutting war spending to help the foundering U.S. economy.
"By far the single most important issue is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts," the congressmen wrote.
The 2010 budget for the Pentagon is $693 billion. Of course, this does not include intelligence budgets and secret "black" operations appropriations, which many estimates place at more than $100 billion annually. Add in supplemental bills to fund the needless no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United States is fast approaching the $1 trillion spending mark.
Global Issues, a web site that tracks military spending, reports that U.S. military appropriations are seven times what China spends, 13 times what Russia spends and 73 times what Iran spends on their respective militaries. When you combine Chinese and Russian weapons spending, that still only amounts to a quarter of what the United States spends. Add the military budgets of Cuba , Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria - and the United States spends 44 times that amount.
"Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it," the congressmen wrote. "Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role, long after there is any justification for it."
The two say they have convened a task force that has already proposed a number of programs that could reduce spending by more than $1 trillion in the course of the next decade - which translates into $100 billion a year.
"We may not agree on what to do with the estimated $1
trillion in savings," the two conclude, "but we do
agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible
if we do not begin to face this issue now."
|Top|
Drug companies are now coming forward to scratch the backs of the legislators who helped pass the socialized medicine scheme known as "Obamacare." According to a new report, Big Pharma has been riding to the rescue of the troubled campaign of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for his integral support of mandated healthcare.
In return for their advocacy of the new "healthcare" law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in 2009, which forces hardworking middle-class Americans to purchase health insurance from private companies, major drug makers estimate they will make a tidy profit from all their new customers. So now they figure it's payback time.
Reid is up for re-election in the midterm elections in November 2010 and has been facing tough competition from Republican candidate Sharron Angle, a tea party favorite whose provocative statements have been generating quite a bit of press lately.
According to the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, which monitors transparency in government, the pharmaceutical lobby has been airing commercials accross Nevada in support of Reid, who is bought and paid for, having received $361,850 from the drug industry.
Media reports say that Reid is now the No. 2 recipient of
money from Big Pharma, behind Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.0, whose
state has the most pharmacutical research facilities in the nation.
|Top|
Major storms will erupt around sen. Russell Pearce's S.B. 1070 in the coming years, so it is a good idea to see the big picture. There already are several plaintiffs, including the Department of Justice itself, taking on Arizona in court. And Mexico is reportedly involved in the litigation on American soil.
In Freemont, Neb, 57 percent of the citizens voted for a ban on hiring or renting to illegal aliens. Moreover, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen is under serious pressure from his voters to "do the right thing." In Pennsylvania, a bill similar to Arizona's has already been introduced, though Gov. Ed Rendell promised to veto it. In Texas, two-thirds of the registered voters favor Arizona's way of handling illegal immigration, or what would be better called "unchecked migration."
In all, says Pearce, more than 30 states are, in one way or another, considering following Arizona's lead. And the "illegals" in Phoenix are voting with their feet - enrollments in mostly Hispanic schools are dropping dramatically. Thus, a "perfect storm" is apparently brewing andit is the job of all Americans who want secure borders to make sure that it will clear lawlessness off this land - lawlessness that Sen. Pearce, a former sheriff's deputy, is trying to solve by having authored S.B. 1070. He remains confident it will be upheld legally and take effect as planned on July 29, 2010.
Variations of S.B. 1070 have already been introduced at the municipal level at many places in the country. The Lavishly-funded American Civil Liberties Union is promising a lawsuit against Freemont for not following the open-borders party line. And Hazleton, Pa. Is already fighting a lawsuit for introducing similar laws in 2006, with $5 million spent and more millions to be paid. There, a "community" of lawyers is trying to bankrupt a small town and force America into submission.
On one side of this conflict we see the majority of the voters - the real producers of this nation; on the other, we see the usual suspects - the ACLU, anti-Defamation League, groups of lawyers and the DOJ.
The cure is to spread the new laws and regulations as far and as fast as possible to overwhelm opponents of secure borders, who say that those who want secure borders are just bigots with no rhyme nor reason for their stance in favor of sovereignty. It must not be forgotten that Mexico's immigration laws allow no compromise and are far stricter than America's.
Opponents of the new law also try to plant the "fear of the fed" into our hearts, talking about mandatory ID cards etc. We are already unable to live, rent, bank, heal, walk, drive or breathe without some sort of governmental authorization, and the real issue is the flooding of America with those who bring the Third World with them. A single personal computer could be used to manage the illegal alien issue in any state if the laws on the books were enforced. In California, Businesses hiring illegal aliens can be fined out of existence, but nobody seems to want the revenue.
The U.S. border was abandoned by the fed and Arizona has the right answer to this grave insult. S.B. 1070 states on the very first page: "The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona." And this intention is clearly worded to intercept the daily existence of the illegal alien at all critical points. Police in Arizona can: stop and question anybody if they have reason to believe that the individual might be an illegal; verify his or her criminal status; and make an arrest. The state has already organized raids against businesses where illegals have been hired. Legal status must be established when applying for "Any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state."
Finally, the new law promises to enforce existing federal
laws that force aliens to be registered by the government - just
like the rest of us.
|Top|
Happy belated Independence Day. The United States of America has survived another year - one at a time. You're probably wondering about my attitude. You should be. No one dares to even speak of our nation's predicament with such cynicism. It almost seems unpatriotic to do so. Well, the truth hurts.
We are losing our independence by leaps and ounds. The process is so systematic, and often subliminal, that we don't even recognize it. We are becoming used to this constant erosion of our independence.
Much of this gradual loss of freedom is disguised by government buzzwords such as "voluntary." Take our "voluntary" tax system, for instance. Our progressive income tax system is so "voluntary" that if you act in a "voluntary" capacity by not paying it, you'‘ go to prison. And now we have a "voluntary" healthcare system. If you "voluntarily" choose to opt out, you'll be fined for not "volunteering."
Let's take another buzzword: stimulus, which can best be described in the context of stimulus and response. The action is called stimulus. The response is more debt and taxes. Which leads me to social Security.
What is it? A retirement plan to stave off poverty for our elders? That's the perceived purpose. In reality, the Social Security program has turned into another government slush fund. Don't get me wrong: I am a big supporter of the Social Security program. It has helped many seniors in need. The problem is, the politicians have raided it.
But I maintain that there is no trust fund, there's nothing more than an obscure file in some obscure cabinet in some obscure government building in Parkersburg, W. Va. The obscure file account in Parkersburg is full of IOUs. The government has abused the Social Security fund to fight wars, hire more government workers, provide foreign aid and propagandize the American people.
Realizing the dire predicament facing the Social Security program, President Obama has set up yet another blue-ribbon committee. When we hear "blue-ribbon" committee, we are programmed to believe that all will be well, that the problem will be eradicated.
Obama is setting up the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Big shots will be appointed, with a supposedly bipartisan membership to "save" Social Security.
The expectations are predicated on two distinct actions undertaken by democratic and Republican members. The Democratic membership will be structured to agree to cuts in Social Security benefits while the Republican membership will be structured to raise taxes, significantly, to reduce the massive deficits.
Meanwhile, we, the American people, will have to wait and wait some more until after this fall's elections. It's very simple, folks, because after this fall's elections, it will be too late for any input, too late for any objections by the voters.
You see, common wisdom says in Washington, D.C. that by the time the next elections roll around, the average American voter will have forgotten all about this new blue-ribbon commission.
If my analysis is correct, the Democratic Party will be leading an assault on Social Security. Will it lead to reduced benefits? Will the eligibility age be raised? Conjure in your own mind what this blue-ribbon group will do.
Taking a step further, the Republicans likely will approve tax increases, maybe some sort of value-added tax. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Dalif.) wants it. Amidst posturing by both parties, I predict you'll get it.
I do not have one iota of confidence in either party to safeguard our future. Both parties are concerned with elections, not our welfare. If you have any doubts about that, just consider the Social Security situation presented here. consider the national debt. Consider unemployment. Consider our endless involvement in foreign wars. Consider massive home foreclosures.
Do we really enjoy the independence that July 4 speakers have proclaimed and dramatized? I think not, my friends.
Americans are gravitating away from independence to dependence and servitude.
If you have a problem, hey, the government will handle it. Frankly, the government will just put another bucket full of IOUs in the obscure Social security account in Parkersburg. And then give you all the "stimulus" you need to get by.
In fact, the politicians will give you all you want, even before the election. In fact, I predict, they'll give it to you right before you vote. Think about it.
I say, to the politicians, keep your filthy hand off our social
Security. Keep your grubby hands out of our pockets.
|Top|
We are indeed living in interesting times. Gerald Celente, the man who correctly predicted every economic shock since the 1987 stock market crash through the Panic of 2008, is now forecasting: "America's going to go through a transition the likes of which no one is prepared for," a crisis "worse than the great depression," possible revolution in America, food riots, tax rebellions and total economic collapse.
Natural and unnatural disasters, strange weather phenomena, earthquakes, criminal in high places plotting wars, biological attacks, alleged pandemics, terrorism, tyrannical cabals plotting to use any and all catastrophes as a pretext to take away what's left of our rights and liberties - common sense prescribes preparation.
Step one: Make a list. Only you can decide what is most likely to happen where you live. Are you single? Do you have a large family? Dependents with special needs? Pets?
Do you live in a big city that could explode into riots, uncontrollable crime or fires if the police or fire departments could no longer be paid? If you had to flee the city and millions of refugees were jamming every road, could you escape. If you live in a rural area and can live self-sustainably, how will you protect your life and property from hungry mobs escaping the cities.
How much money and time do you have to invest in preparation? How close are you to friends and family who you can count on? If landlines, cell phones and computers go down - how can you keep in contacts? Do you have a meeting place or a safe place agreed upon?
TEOTWAWKI is the acronym for "The End of the World as We Know It," a phrase made popular by an irreverent REM song. Yet it is already a living nightmare for millions of Americans, who live near the gulf or who have lost their jobs, pensions, savings, homes, unemployment benefits its. Any number of things could trigger a collapse of civilization with long-term effects. For instance, if Iran is attacked it could be disastrous for the United States.
What used to be know as "preparedness" in the 1980s and 1990s is now called "prepping," and those who focus on this and write about it are known as "preppers."
Serious preppers - those who dedicate a lot of thought and effort to preparing for whatever may happen - make lists such as the following for a variety of survival and self-reliance needs.
* Every Day Carry (EDC) is your basic survival system that you should always have with you. Suggestions: Self-defense, such as a firearm and knife; tools to fix things, build a shelter, start a fire or get somewhere else; a lighter or matches; a flashlight and myriad other things. Ideally, your EDC can be kept in your pockets, purse, bag or backpack that you always have with you.
* Get Out Of Dodge (GOOD) bags are a good idea. They should contain whatever vital items you can carry if you have to make an immediate evacuation.
* Bug Out Bags (BOBs) are 72-hour kits, to help you survive for at least three days if you have to leave your home and find safer pastures for such things as a hurricane, power outage, earthquake or a train or truck wreck that spilled hazardous materials.
* 14-day survival supplies, for something like nuclear fallout.
*Three-month survival plan (food and supplies).
*One-year plan (long-term food storage, as well as supplies,
to get through an extended crisis of whatever nature).
|Top|
It's summertime, and by now most people have their vegetable plants in the ground. The first fresh tomatoes have been harvested, and crops that grow in cooler weather like lettuce, asparagus and broccoli are on their way out. Now is the time to start thinking abut the next stage for gardens and farms. This year, why not plant a small plot of wheat or some other grain for you and your family? You may be surprised how easy and enjoyable it is.
As the U.S. economy continues to flounder, there has been renewed interest in homesteading. Consequently, small-scale grain raising is on the rise, and a number of garden and farm stores are stocking many different kinds of organic wheat, rye, hull-less oats and barley.
Gene Logsdon's famous book Small-Scale Grain Raising, available for free on the Internet, lays out everything any one would need to know to get started in this simple endeavor.
Here are the basics of planting and harvesting grains. Generally speaking, these crops are planted in the fall. It's always good to ask a local cooperative extension for specific planting dates.
Your grain plants will continue to grow when nothing else does, showing off their green well into the cold weather as everything around them browns and dies off. By simply putting the seeds into a prepared garden bed, anyone who has ever grown a tomato plant or a rose bush will find growing grains so easy you will wonder why you never did it before.
Harvesting is specific to each grain. However - again, generally speaking - you harvest when the stalks turn brown, and let them dry in a cool, dry location. When ready, place the stalks on a clean tarp or sheet and smack them with a stick or a makeshift flail to separate the grain from the seed head.
When this writer harvested hard winter wheat this year, I used a homemade flail to separate the wheat from the stalks and chaff. I then swept up the grain and the remaining chaff and poured it through a makeshift sieve made out of a box and some screen known as hardware cloth. An electric fan that was set up behind me would blow the chaff away as I dumped the grain through the screen into a box below.
After you have collected your grain, you can grind the seeds in a coffee grinder or purchase a hand grinder for less than $30 from a local hardware store or off the Internet.
How much grain can you grow on a small plot? Today's farmers can get as many as 50 to 75 bushels of whet per acre, so a garden that is about 10 feet by 20 beet could yield as much as a quarter-bushel if you can keep the weeds down, A quarter-bushel (that's on peck) of wheat can produce as many as 15 to 20 loaves of bread, depending on their size.
As Logsdon points out in his book, people need to know that this is not about profits or pinching pennies. This is about growing quality food for yourself, independently of a country where big business prides itself on cutting corners at the consumer's expense.
"We have become a nation dangerously dependent on politically
motivated and money motivated processes for our food," writes
Logsdon. "In the world we must live in from now on, to produce
our own food is the beginning of independence. To accept that
responsibility is the first step toward real freedom."
|Top|
So many men were overseas during World War II that millions of Americans had to plant "Victory Gardens" to feed their families. Big banks and big corporations subsidized factory farms, imported and exploited illegal foreign labor that put the family farmer on the endangered species list - and made the family garden all but extinct, even on surviving family farms.
Today, any breakdown in transportation, say $6 per gallon or more for fuel, could starve millions of Americans in a few days. The current food supplies are slowly starving and poisoning Americans due to lack of nutrients and the pollution of a complex concoction of various toxic Chemicals. A solution to all this - that would cut the costs of the "health" industry - would be for people to eat locally-grown, organic food from natural, not GM (genetically modified) seeds.
It takes too much time, money and effort - so only a relatively few Americans eat healthy diets. This writer lives on a homestead and loves to use tillers. Having bought, borrowed and rented tillers - some of which will vibrate your arms and teeth - for most people the rear-mounted tines are your best bet. But there is a better way to garden that virtually everyone from three years young to age 103 can do.
Square-foot gardening (SFG) was developed by civil engineer Mel Bartholomew decades ago. It has proven to be a miraculous solution. Years of experience have culminated in 10 major improvements.
It's a simple system that anyone from a novice to a green-thumb expert can use, no matter where they live. You can grow all you want and need in only 20 percent of the space of an old-fashioned backyard victory garden. It saves time, water, work and money.
It takes 50 percent of the cost, w0 percent of the space, 10 percent of the water, 5 percent of the amount of seeds and 2 percent of the work - to get 100 percent of the harvest.
SFG is simple: With a raised garden bed filled with organic soil, any size garden - four feet by four feet, six feet by six feet, eight feet by eight feet - is broken down into one-foot-by-one-foot squares and then intensively gardened. Lettuce goes in one square, a cucumber plant in another, a squash plant in another and so on until all of the squares are filled. You can even grow non-GM sweet corn using an SFG.
It takes no time to learn how to do it. That is a tiny investment for your right to a lifetime of good living - and a supply of food in the event of the collapseof the New World Order's "free trade" house of cards.
Even if the corporate operation never collapses, even if there
ware no wonderful health benefits - once you taste real food,
grown in nutrient-rich soil, you will never want to go back to
the tasteless "proletarian food" of modern Babylon.
|Top|