June 4, 2007
June 11&18, 2007
Whole Body Health
June 25, 2007
Bilderberg chasers think they have identified the site of this year's meeting but, as they say in the trade, "it is not 100%."
The site is the Klassis
Hotel in the tiny town of Silivri, about 40 miles from Istanbul.
It fits the Bilderberg pattern: posh resort outside the urban
area, easily guarded and with a golf course.
It was first suggested by Emre Tekin, a tour guide who lives in Istanbul and volunteered his services at no fee to help pin down Bilderberg. But the hotel said it could make reservations June 1, although Bilderberg meets May 31 to June 4.
However, an international financial consultant who has done business with Bilderberg luminaries for decades, and who has helped American Free Press smoke out the secret meetings for many years, finally got a breakthrough. He called the Klassis, inquiring at the executive level about reservations for 20 people and was told that the facility was crowded for those dates.
"Oh, you have Bilderberg there those dates," he said.
"Yes, Bilderberg," was the response.
So why are we not "100%"? Instinct. Every year, it gets tougher. Years ago, Bilderberg luminaries received letters in January or, at the latest, February, with complete details on dates and locations. Suspecting that this information was being leaked by secretaries and file clerks, the letters started saying "hold these dates" with details to follow—reducing the days of exposure.
Also, years ago, resorts that were to host Bilderberg would be "filled up" on those dates. Now, reservation clerks are not told the place will be packed except a few days in advance and single reservations are accepted—to be cancelled later with apologies and arrangements made elsewhere.
That's when the Washington collaborator re-enters the search, speaking to hotel executives about 20 reservations for people who are so important they must not be inconvenienced and offended by cancelled reservations.
The Klassis could not accommodate the imaginary luminaries. Again, why are we not "100%"?
Instinct. Something's got me antsy. No matter what happens, this reporter will be in Istanbul to cover the event whether we know the location or not as I've done for the past 25 years.
In 1954, a group of internationalists decided that the world had become so small and their interests intersected so often, that they should have regular meetings to be held annually. That year these powerful, wealthy individuals met at the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland, and took the name "Bilderberg group."
Since that time, they have met at five-star resorts behind sealed-off walls with armed guards watching entrances. A total media blackout prevailed for a few years, until the late journalist, Westbrook Pegler, wrote about the group in 1957.
Despite this, Chatham House rules have remained in effect. Meetings are held privately and attendees are prohibited from talking about what took place. This reporter has been covering Bilderberg since 1975.
James P. Tucker Jr. will be crafting his next report in Istanbul. AFP supporters are helping Jim pay his expenses traveling to and from the meeting by sending in $35. In return, donors get a personalized, autographed copy of Tucker's Bilderberg Diary.
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|
It's likely that the Trans-Texas Corridor will "sit the bench" for at least two years - with a ban on land-acquisition, financing, design, maintenance and construction. As of May 23, another legislative attempt to impose a two-year moratorium on the TTC was in the stae legislature's Conference Committee. In an earlier vote on the bill, S.B. 792, the Senate approved it 31-0 and the House cleared it by a vote of 145-2. So it has strong backing.
The compromise legislation appeared destined for Gov. Rick Perry's desk, as American Free Press goes to press. It contains adjustments that moratorium-backers hope will soften Perry's opposition to stalling the TTC.
On May 18, Perry vetoed H.B. 1892, the legislature's first shot at sidelining the TTC for two years, to allow more time for study and debate. But state Sen. Tommy Williams authored S.B. 792, which legislative aid Jason Smith said contains just enough differences from H.B. 1892 to possibly win Perry's approval before the legislative session ends May 28. The legislature does not reconvene until January 2009.
Smith told AFP May 23 that Perry has stated a willingness to sign S.B. 792. Time will tell The earlier vote on the Senate bill suggests that a veto override is possible should Perry turn the tables and again veto the moratorium.
S.B. 792 contains a critical concession under which local highway authorities, who normally have considerable autonomy constructing and maintaining highways within their jurisdiction, would have far less authority when it comes to the TTC, making the TTC more of a top-down project mainly handled by the Texas Department of Transportation, or TxDOT.
S.B. 792 also contains language intended to guarantee that TxDOT will do everything regarding the TTC in an above-board, transparent manner to enable the public to be fully informed about its progress
FROM THE BILL ITSELF
A section of a report on S.B. 792 explains the following about this need for transparency:
"The bill states TxDOT shall seek to achieve transparency in the department's functions related to the Trans-Texas Corridor by providing, to the greatest extent possible under the public information law (Chapter 552), Government Code) and other statutes governing the access to records, public access to information collected, assembled or maintained by the department relating to the Trans-Texas Corridor."
The bill also states that the department shall make public
all documents, plans, and contracts related to the TTC by posting
them on the department's web site.
NAFTA CONDUIT
TTC critics, as well as backers like Kansas City SmartPort, have identified the TTC as a significant component in a proposed trans-national highway-toll-way system of unprecedented size and scope. Although Smith said the TTC is not generally associated with NAFTA in legislative discussions, some critics have dubbed the TTC, and the Larger system into which it fits, as the "NAFTA" superhighway," sinceit runs through various parts of the United States, thereby connecting Mexico with Canada.
One major corridor of the TTC would run along the existing Interstate 35 from Laredo by the Mexican border to Dallas. Another would shadow I-77 and I-59 from South Texas toward Houston. Signs along I-77 and I-59 say "I-69: Future Interstate Corridor." Several are posted, as this AFP reporter saw during recent travels.
Kansas City, and inland city, is the planned epicenter of the superhighway system, since it already has considerable highway, fright-railroad assets and U.S. customs offices that AFP saw firsthand in December 2006. However, as AFP revealed in past reports, Kansas City is slated to be a major customs facility for monitoring cargo entering the United States even though it's a great distance from the border with Mexico.
Smith noted that, in early March, experts with varying viewpoints
testified about the TTC to the Transportation and Homeland Security
Committee. Some expressed concerns that a great deal of property,
including massive amounts of rural land, would have to be condemned
under eminent domain laws to gobble up enough property through
which to run the TTC. In some areas, the TTC may have up to six
lanes in each direction - with parallel rail, utility lines and
other systems.
|Top|
Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president "mismanaged" the war, they say. "It's all the president's fault," they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.
More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq.
According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don't think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a "continuing threat" to the United States.
As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.
With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?
This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 10-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to ur troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq.
I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support
among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well
as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the
authority for Iraq, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.
|Top|
An ambiguous new presidential directive on homeland security, which is said to give the president sweeping powers to plunge the nation into martial law, did not generate much, if any, media attention and apparently was not scrutinized by Congress.
Officially named the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, this decree, dated May 9, declares that should a natural or manmade catastrophic event occur, President George W. Bush "can become what is best described as a dictator." At least that's the assessment of Larry Chin, who wrote a brief May 21 analysis on the directive for the Center for Research on Globalization, based in Canada.
It's not as if this directive is hard to find. Posted on the white House web site (whitehouse.gov) under the Department of Homeland security, it states, under the policy heading: "The President shall lead the activities of the federal government for ensuring constitutional government." some five to six pages long single-spaced, the directive will be submitted to the president for approval "no later than 90 days after the date of this directive," as it states.
Ironically, this particular directive claims that the federal government could maintain separation of powers even during a catastrophe. But it does not explain how constitutional government could be "ensured." Historically, major traumas have prompted governments to limit or suspend liberties. Chin's take on the decree is as follows: "This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, by passing the U.S. Congress and obliteration the separation of powers. The directive also placed the secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic ‘security.'"
AFP carefully read the entire directive. It's a broad, general outline of how the federal government intends to continue leading the country and somehow maintain the confidence of the American people in the event of a "catastrophic emergency." The directive defines an emergency as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy or government functions."
The directive carries several acronyms, including, ironically, a pledge called "Ensuring Constitutional Government," or ECG. It defines this as "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government, coordinated by the president, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to reserve the constitutional framework under which the nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and ‘interoperability' and support of the national essential functions during a catastrophic emergency."
Another notable item is that the directive, besides referring
to "Continuity of Operations," refers to Continuity
of Government," or COG, which is a broad but familiar concept.
In 2004,this theme was an issue on Capitol Hill when Dr. Charles
Rice, a noted law professor emeritus at the University of Notre
dame, wrote a piece, submitted to Congress, in which he argued
against a constitutional amendment proposed by the Continuity
of Government Commission to suspend congressional elections in
the event of a catastrophic such as a major terrorist attack.
|Top|
In order to combat the mysterious decline of honeybee populations around the United States, known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), we must first rethink our approach to agriculture, changing the way in which we interact with the natural world.
Once this insect was revered asa sacred animal, along with the cow and the scarab beetle, all of which were known to create fertility, thriving flora and fauna, throughout the land. Not only agriculture, but our very lives depend on honeybees.
Today, reverence has given way to a single-minded emphasis on the economic returns they can provide: how much milk, how much honey, how much pollination service can I get out of the cow and the honeybee?
CCD is not the first crisis honeybees have faced over the years. In the 1960s there were inexplicable great losses of colonies in Europe. With the advent of the varroa and tracheal mites and with the spread of American foulbrood (an infectious disease caused by bacteria that targets whole colonies), great losses had to be endured. By the mid-1990s one could read estimates that here in the United States the number of colonies had dwindled from 7.5 million down to 2.5 million.
The way these crises were handled was no different from how we tend to take care of human illnesses today: we always look for the silver bullet, the imaginary salvation fabricated by Hollywood. The chemical industry offers one chemical to combat mites and another against foulbrood. By now we should know that solutions such as these are not only short-lived and bring with them many unwanted side effects, but they also upset the delicate balance of interdependence in the household of nature.
For some years now our efforts have been intensified to breed the bee: one that can let us do with her what ever we desire. Thus an ad in beekeeping journals a few years ago stated: "We asked the bees what would make them more profitable." This "superbee" would be able to cope with mites, hive beetles, viruses and bacteria, and would stand up to all the environmental poisons: insecticides, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.
We have become accustomed to focus on these attackers of the honeybee as the enemies that have to be conquered. We do the same when we blame other individuals or other nations for our problems, without first questioning our own attitudes, beliefs and practices. In the case of the honeybee, it is our farming practices and our beekeeping methods that must be scrutinized if we are to reverse the calamity that is threatening.
In the last 150 years many critical inventions have permitted beekeeping to become commercialized, so that apiaries can be run like factories. Colonies are trucked by the thousands from one monoculture to the next. Queens are bred artificially and exchanged like the batteries in a cellphone, with one difference: the rate of exchange is much faster.
In our efforts to create the superbee we don't shrink from artificially inseminating queens - an impressive technical feat, but one that is completely against the bee's nature. We raise millions of queens merely to kill them on their eighth day of embryonic development so that we can harvest royal jelly.
Thousands of tons of corn syrup or sugar syrup are fed to our U.S. colonies so that we can harvest practically all of the honey instead of the surplus. No one asks what this does to the honeybee's metabolism, the delicate balance between the acidity of its digestive tract and the alkalinity of its blood. For simplicity's sake we also give the bees plastic foundations upon which to build their honeycomb: not only as a place where honey is stored, but also where the brood is raised. Perhaps we humans will also have wombs with plastic inserts in the future and call it progress.
We treat the honeybee like all other animals in the factory-farming model, all of which have experienced disastrous declines in their vitality as a result. The Holstein cow, for example, pumped full of high-protein feed, hormones and antibiotics, will give almost twice as much milk as she normally would, but instead of living 20 years and having 15 calves, she now has a life expectancy of three to four years and an average of 0.9 calves in our dairy factories.
Are there any solutions to the honeybee crisis? There are, but not that is easy or quick. The attitude that readily sacrifices wholesomeness for a quick monetary return results from the fact that we actually know very little about life processes and the laws that govern them. A return to humility and reverence for the mystery of life, an admission that, clever as we are, we still have much to lean if we are not to destroy ourselves, is the first step in a truly effective response.
Although some scientists have recently theorized that mites, viruses and bacteria have compromised the honeybee's immune system, the exact opposite is true. We have undermined her immune system with stress, poisons, genetically modified crops and ever-more-industrialized beekeeping methods. In turn, external"enemies" whose task in nature is to get rid of what is sick have been given new opportunities to do their work. This is a thought that will not be accepted readily by professional or even hobby beekeepers since it demands radical rethinking and re-evaluation of what we have accomplished in the las century.
Our own lives depend on whether we decide to take responsibility for our role in the decline of the honeybee. If we do, this crisis may become a true turnng point in the creation of a life-sustaining agriculture.
Gurnther Hauk is the program director of the Pfeiffer Center
(www.pfeiffercenterl.org)
and will relocate this summer to southern Illinois, where he will
establish a honeybee sanctuary on a biodynamic farm. Visit spikenardfarm.org
for more information. This article was from the May 2007 issue
of Acres U.S.A. a national journal of sustainable agriculture,
standing virtually alone with a real track record - over 35 years
of continuous publication. To suscribe,call toll free at 1-800-355-5313
or write P.O. Box 91299, Austin, TX 78709.
|Top|
Americans need to know precisely
who is playing a critical part in shaping their nation's policies
and that's why Americans need to know Tamar Jacoby. You may have
never heard of her, but she's influential in manipulating current
attitudes and policies on the question of immigration.
Historically and traditionally, most Americans (especially self-styled "conservatives" who have long and rightly been critics of the immigration invasion) would be surprised to learn that an influential so-called "conservative activist" - the aforementioned Ms. Jacoby - had been respoonsible for the behind-the-scenes deal-making that led to the U.S. Senate's adoption of a measure that will grant amnesty to at least 12 million - some say as many as 20 million - illegal aliens now in this country.
In the old days, the conservatives were in the forefront of fighting untrammeled immigration. But times have changed, and now that a powerful new brand of globally oriented, internationally minded conservative thinking reigns supreme in the upper reaches of the Republican Party, it was Ms. Jacoby who was a major player in hammering out the vaunted "compromise" on immigration now being debated fro a presumed final showdown in Congress.
On of the "young lions" of the hard-line pro-Israel "neo-conservative" clique that dominates a wide array of public policy groups and think tanks in official Washington - and which also remains firmly entrenched inside the power centers of the Bush administration, telling the president what to think and when to think it - Ms. Jacoby currently serves as a fixture at the Manhattan Institute, a neo-conservative plotting stable.
Ms. Jacoby has been a ubiquitous figure in the debate over immigration ( and race relations) in the United States for some time now. Recently, Ms. Jacoby has put a lot of her effort into convincing grass-roots Republican Party activists, small business owners, farmers and ranchers that they need to work together (and with advocates for illegal immigrants) to forge a new immigration policy for the United States that promotes the grandly themed cause of "globalization" - something that many informed folks believe is dangerous not only to American sovereignty but also injurious to the needs of American workers.
The Washington Post reported on May 21 - in an article touting Ms. Jacoby as someone just so special - that Ms. Jacoby "has also tried to rally conservatives with arguments that immigrants are good for the economy and therefore good for the country." Ms. Jacoby is cited as having propounded the theme that "A healthy economy, legality, assimilation - those are all things that conservatives believe in. I'm not ceding those values to anyone."
Any time the very reliably liberal Washington Post finds a conservative - such as Ms. Jacoby - palatable, a traditional conservative in the old-line american sense should know" something is wrong.
The truth is, though, that in many respects, Ms. Jacoby recalls the thinking of the late former President Ronald Reagan, an enthusiastic believer in rolling out the red carpet for immigration, and who - in 1986 - signed legislation granting amnesty to many illegal aliens already in place in the United States at the time. Thus, in that sense, Ms. Jacob is very much a Reaganite, although many Reagan admirers today have forgotten that their hero had been involved in opening up America's borders in such a substantial way, setting the stage for the immigration invasion that followed.
Boasting a remarkable resume rife with multiple ties to big names in the elite media, Ms. Jacoby is a former deputy editor of the op-ed of The New York Times and a former senior editor of Newsweek. She was also married to the late Eric Breindel - another "ex-Trotskyite" -turned-neo-conservative - who was an influential editor of billionaire Rupert Murdoch's New York Post where Breindel made the paper a screaming and enthusiastic torch-bearer for international Zionism.
Like her late ex-husband, who was once dubbed "the connection man" because of his own deep-rooted and wide-ranging influence in Zionist circles, Ms. Jacoby is known for her ethnic and cultural sympathies for Israel.
Actually, it should be no surprise that Ms. Jacoby - considering her ties to the Jewish lobby - should be in the forefront of the so-called efforts to "reform" American immigration policy. As Dr. Kevin MacDonald, a professor at California State University at Long beach, demonstrated in his landmark study - Jewish Involvement in Influencing United States Immigration Policy 1881-1965: A Historical Review - American Jewish organizations and activists were key figures in the array of legislative maneuvers that eviscerated America's theretofore restrictive immigration measure. MacDonald's paper, published in the journal, Population and Environment 19,295-355 in 1998, has een reprinted on MacDonald's web site at kevinmacdonald.net.
One would be remiss in failing to note that the very well-connected Ms. Jacoby is also a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York-based "junior" cousin of the London-based Royal Institute for International Affairs, which acts as the foreign policy arm of the international Rothschild banking dynasty, patrons of Israel and Zionist schemes.
The worldwide tentacles of the super capitalists in the Rothschild
sphere of influence have long locked onto open borders, population
transfers and the so-called "globalization" of the economy.
The globalists can rely on their agents in place - such as Ms.
Jacoby - to be peddling their propaganda line as Ms. Jacoby and
her neo-conservative allies are doing today.
|Top|
ISTANBUL, Turkey—Bilderberg celebrated President Bush's "surrender" on two major issues while showing distress over continuing setbacks to its goal of establishing a world government under the United Nations.
Bush's surrender came on two fronts: The environment and the sovereignty-surrendering Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). As recently as May 25, Bush administration officials reiterated his long-standing opposition to European demands on the environment, especially the Kyoto Treaty, which would impose heavy economic burdens on the United States while exempting Mexico and other smoke-belching nations. His reversal on LOST is now under the radar of the mainstream media but will eventually have to emerge.
Bilderberg was among the first to discover the environment as an issue years ago. But these sons of smokestack millionaires were motivated by the potential for immense profits in cleaning up the environment, not by foul air and dirty water. Thus Bilderberg's pressure on the European Union to require heavy taxpayer investments for clean-up and former President Bill Clinton, himself a Bilderberger, to advocate ratification of the Kyoto Treaty.
But in Washington on May 31, even as Bilderberg luminaries were arriving at the posh Ritz-Carlton for their annual secret meeting, Bush called for 15 major nations to agree on a goal for global emissions limits by the end of next year. "The United States takes this seriously," Bush said.
But while gloating over this "surrender," Bilderberg members denounced his efforts as "too little and too late" because the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2012. The Europeans agreed that more must be demanded at the Group of 8 summit now taking place, but Bush must not be "embarrassed." The new environmental buzzword is to be "sustainable growth."
Among new climate related demands by Bilderberg is for the United State to increase gasoline taxes so the price will rise "significantly" to more than $6 a gallon. The argument is that this will reduce driving and thus emissions. They argued, with little or no dissent from Americans, that Europeans already pay that much or more. Unsaid was the fact that many more Americans have to drive long distances to work. Many Europeans live so close to their jobs they walk or ride bikes.
Lest this be shrugged off as politically impossible, with voters already outraged at record-high prices, there is a precedent. Years ago, during another period of record gas prices, Bilderberg's junior varsity, the Trilateral Commission (TC), met in San Francisco. TC and Bilderberg have an interlocking leadership and common agenda. TC was founded by David Rockefeller. Henry Kissinger and Peter Sutherland sit on the boards of both groups. TC demanded that the federal government increase gas taxes by 10 cents a gallon.
The meeting ended on a Sunday and on the following Tuesday, The Washington Post called for a 10-cent tax hike. It passed. You paid. Bush's about-face on the sea treaty is astounding. It will further alienate his base of conservatives, already angry over high taxes, high deficits and foolish spending.
Only Bilderberg, as its members boasted, could pressure Bush into such an irrational act. This demonstrates the raw power of Bilderberg.
President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST in 1982. President Bush the Elder let the issue lie fallow. Bilderberger Clinton signed the treaty and wanted to submit it to the Senate for ratification. He pulled back when a test vote showed a 95-0 opposition to the LOST.
For Bush to anger his already antagonized Republican base by this about-face is incredible.
Bilderberg participants said "pressure has been applied," and Bush is expected to announce support of the LOST "soon." Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, has asked the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden (D-Del.), to secure ratification "soon."
The LOST took effect in 1994 and has been ratified by 153 countries. If ratified, the United States would yield sovereignty over all the world's seas and oceans to a UN bureaucracy. Americans could be ordered by the UN to stop fishing or digging for clams on either coast. The LOST created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) with full jurisdiction over more than 70% of the world: the oceans and everything in them.
This includes the ocean floors and all the wealth they contain: "solid, liquid, or gaseous mineral resources" and the power to regulate them. The ISA, headquartered in Jamaica, has an assembly, a council and numerous commissions in a typically bloated bureaucracy, all paid tax-free salaries. If ratified, the United States would have one in 154 votes, and with envy and hatred of our country so widespread, this nation would lose every appeal of every decision.
These bureaucrats would have the power to levy international taxes, something Bilderberg has wanted for many years. Bilderberg prefers, as members have said many times at their meetings over many years, a UN tax on oil at the wellhead. Starting at perhaps 10 cents a barrel, Americans would be unaware they are paying a direct tax to the UN when buying gas. But, like the income tax, it would grow to usurious levels. But the principle is important to Bilderberg: a direct tax on people of the world would be a major step toward global government. Such a tax has been pending before the UN for years but unreported in the mainstream media.
The LOST taxes would be disguised as assessments, fees, permits or payments. But they will cost you money.
But the good news is, Bilderberg is upset that, as public knowledge and indignation rises, the plan for global government is years behind schedule. In the 1990s, Bilderberg was confident that, by 2000, the merging of Europe into a single superstate would be completed and the "American Union" would be well on the way to completion. But two nations failed to ratify the EU constitution, keeping it from taking effect. And outraged Americans have prevented NAFTA from evolving into the "American Union."
Peter Sutherland, chairman of British Petroleum and Goldman Sachs International, among others, said it was a mistake for the Netherlands and France to kill the EU constitution by putting it to a popular vote so the public could reject it.
"You knew there was a rise in nationalism; you should have let your parliaments ratify the treaty, and it should be done with," Sutherland fumed. His views were applauded with no apparent dissent.
The term "nationalism" is an obscenity to Bilderberg, being equated with patriotism.
A German said a new draft of the treaty will be shorter and more easily understood.
"Tell your people you fixed the treaty to meet their complaints, and let your parliaments ratify without a popular vote," he said.
Then the problem of the failure of the "American Union" was addressed. "We must help the enlightened media, as opposed to small journals obsessed with national sovereignty, understand that it is the patriotic duty of the people to support the North American zone [U.S. Mexico and Canada] because it will bring prosperity to the poor and put food in the mouths of hungry babies," Henry Kissinger said. "Then it can expand, as NAFTA was intended, to all the Western Hemisphere and evolve into the ‘American Union.' "
Yet, despite the pep talk, Bilderberg was gloomy, seeing the spectre of nationalism. Was not NAFTA expected to similarly succeed?
"Many congressmen who voted for NAFTA lost their seats and survivors are scared to death," an American said. "We tried to explain that, ultimately, more and better jobs would be generated by NAFTA. But the man who lost a high-paying manufacturing job to Mexico and is now flipping burgers for minimum wage votes, too."
There was some discussion about how to make Joe Sixpack understand. "He should have understood," one said. "There was much in the newspapers and on TV and radio."
Kissinger, arguing for Turkey's immediate admission to the European Union, said European nations willingly "gave up their sovereignty, to a certain extent," after World War II in exchange for security. Persisting loyalty to the "nation-state" creates structural barriers to the EU, he said. Turkey is of "extraordinary strategic and political importance" for the EU, Kissinger said, but stressed that membership would require European intervention in domestic affairs—an idea resented by many Turks.
A Turkish member said that many of his countrymen resent appearing to "beg" for EU membership, and many want to remain outside and retain their national sovereignty. France strongly opposes admitting Turkey to the EU. Officially, Turkey wants admission.
Despite screaming headlines and chilling newspaper stories, Turkish members denied there is a military buildup on the border with Iraq and said there would be no attack on Kurds living there. (Despite denials by the Turkish government, it has been reported that several thousand Turkish troops have now invaded Iraq.)
European members remain opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq but more friendly toward the attack on Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a "more logical target" resulting in "less dead." At the time of these comments, on June 1, 3,473 Americans had been killed in Iraq and 390 in Afghanistan.
Bilderberg is troubled about Iran's nuclear ambitions but more concerned about its oil. Any U.S. military action must be limited to strategic airstrikes and no attacks by land, or "boots on the ground," several Europeans said. But Americans must remain in Iraq, Kissinger said.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
When reporters from Europe and the United States met in Istanbul on Wednesday, May 30, local newspapers were still reporting that Vilderberg would meet at the Klassis, another five-star resort. So a "team" was formed, and the downtown Klassis and aKlassis Country Club 40 miles away were checked out. But only the Ritz-Carlton, a tall building atop a tall hill, had platoons of armed guards at the gates and surrounding the hill, making penetration impossible. For the record, however, I made my ritual trip to the front gate to be officially denied entrance. Tom Davis, a videographer from New York, who had interviewed me back at the office fro a TV documentary on AFP's pursuit of Bilderberg, was in Instanbul for the full show. He and his colleagues pointed out two plain clothes cops who had been watching us at our hotel, then followed us as we motored to the Bilderberg hideout. It was a lot of fun teasing them, telling them how flattered we were to be so "protected." Their only response was faint blushig and silly grins. They or their associates trailed us from early morning to late at nite. Each evening, we gathered at our headquarters hotel, the Orient Express, and pooled information. There was a good group each night. I was constantly being interviewed by reporters and broadcasters. On the morning of the first day, I received a call from a source. He said he would help me if I would agree to a couple of conditions, the first dealing with his own safety. He would name a specific bar and a precise time, and I would be there waiting. Thus, if he saw security guys on my trail, he could pass innocently by. The second condition was that I share all the information he gave me with allother reporters. He represented several others who, teamed with him, became our eyes and ears inside Bilderberg. On the second night, I arrived at the sesignated spot - my source dictated directions by phone - only to find it closed. I thought the cause was lost but a man inquired of me: "Mrl Tookier?" I nodded. "Your friend is waiting for you at another place. I will escort youl" We entered an Irish bar. My escort looked out at the street and nodded to the source, and his "truth squad." Patriots everywhere are grateful to these brave people for, at great personal and financial risk, providing the truth about Bilderberg. |
Jim Tucker emerges from the Orient Express Hotel in Istanbul. As usual, a camera crew was waiting for him. Though ignored by the U.S. press in America. Tucker was interviewed dozens of times by foreign press who realize Bilderberg meetings are real news. |
Bilderberg refused to provide a complete list. Most names come courtesy of Danny Estulin, an independent journalist based in Spain, and the rest from personal observation by a team of reporters in Istanbul and from local newspapers.
Alogoskoufis, George - Minister of Economy and finance - Greece
Arzijamo. A. E. - Chrmn., Turkish Industrialists & Businessmen's
Ass'n
Babacan, Ali -Minister of Economic Affairs - Turkey
Balls, Edward - Economic Secretary to the Treasury - UK
Balsemão, Francisco Pinto - CEO, Impresa, Former PM - Portugal
Barnier, Michale - former Foreign Minister - France
Barroso, José M. Durão - President, European Comm.
- Portugal
Bernabé, Franco - Vice Chrmn., Rothschild Europe - Italy
Beytout, Nicolas - Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro - France
Bildt, Carl - Former Prime Minister - Sweden
Borg, Anders - Finance Minister - Sweden
Burda, Hubert - Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding
-Belgium
Camus, Philippe - CEO, EADS - France
Castries, Henri de - Chrmn. Of the Mngmnt. Board & CEO, AXA
- France
Cebrian, Juan Luis - Grupo PRISA media Group - Spain
Clark, Kenneth - Member of Parliament - UK
Collins, Timothy C. - Sr. Mngng. Dir. & CEO, Ripplewood Hldngs.,
LLC - USA
Collomb, Bertrand - Chairman, Lafarge - France
David, George A. - Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. - USA
Dervis, Kemal - Administrator, UNDP - Turkey
Eldrup, Anders - President, DONG A/S - Denmark
Elkann, John - Vice Chairman, Fiat S.P.A. - Italy
Feldstein, Martin S. - Pres. & CEO, Nat'l Bur. Of Economic
Resrch. - USA
Gelthner, Timothy F. - Pres. & CEO, Fed. Res. Bank of New
York - USA
Gigot, Paul A. - Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street
Journal - USA
Gleeson, Dermot - Chairman, AIB Group - Ireland
Graham, Donald E. - Chrmn. & DEO, Washington Post Co. - USA
Halberstadt, Victor - Prof.of Economics, Leiden University - Netherlands
Hansen, Jean-Pierre - CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. - Belgium
Haass, Richard N. - President, council on Foreign Relations -
USA
Heemskirk, Frank - Foreign Trade Minister - Netherlands
Holbrooke, Richard C. - Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC - USA
Hoop de Scheffer, Jaap G. - Sec. Gen., NATO - Netherlands/Int'l
Hubbard, Allan B. - Asst. To Pres. For Econ. Pol., Dir. Nat. Econ.
Council - USA
Joffe, Josef - Publisher, Editor, Die Zeit - Germany
Johnson, James A. - Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC - USA
Jordan Jr., Vernon E. - Sr. Mngng. Dir., Lazard Frères
& Co. LLC - USA
Kalaainen, Jyrki - Foreign Minister - Finland
Kaletsky, Anatole - Editor at Large, The Times - UK
Kerr, John - Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell - Netherlands
Kissinger, Henry A. - Chairman, Kissinger Associates - USA
Koc, Mustafa V. - Chairman, Koc Holding A.S. - Turkey
Koru, Fehmi - Senior Writer, Yeni Safek - Turkey
Kouchner, Bernard - Minister of Foreign affairs - France
Kravis, Henry R. - Founding Partner, Kihlberg Kravis Roberts &
Co. - USA
Kravis, Marie -Josèe-Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
- USA
Kroes, Neelie - Comm'r, European Comm. - Netherlands/Int'l
Kronenburg, Ed - Director of the Private Office, NATO HQ - International
Lagarde, Christine - Agricultural Minister - France
Luti, William J. - Assist. To the Pres. Def. Policy/Strategy,
NSC - USA
Mathews, Jessica T. - Pres., Carnegie Endowment for Int'l Peace
- USA
McDowell, Michael - Justice Minister - France
McKenna, Frank - Amb. To the U.S., member Carlyle Group - Canada
Montbrial, Thierry de - Pres., Frencth Inst. for Int'l Relations
- France
Monti, Mario - President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
- Italy
Mundie, Craig, J. - Chief Tech. Off. Advan. Strat./Policy, Microsoft
Corp. - USA
Myklebust, Egil - Chrmn. of the Board of Dir., Norsk Hydro ASA
- Norway
Nass, Matthias - Deputy editor, Die Zeit - Germany
Olechowski, Adnzej - Leader Civic Platform - Poland
Ollila, Jorma - chairman, Royal Dutch Shell/Nokia - Finland
Osborne, George - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer - UK
Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso - Minister of Finance - Italy
Perle, Richard N. - Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
- USA
Perry, Rick - Republican Governor - Texas
Phillippe, Crown Prince - Belgium
Queen Beatrix - Netherlands
Queen Sofia - Spain
Reisman, Heather - Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
- Canada
Rockefeller, David - USA
Rodriguez, Matías - Executive Vice chrmn., Grupo Santander
Bank - Spain
Ross, Dennis B. - Dir., Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- USA
Schily, Otto - Parliament; Member, Comm.on Foreign Affairs - Germany
Schrempp, Jürgen E. - DaimlerChrysler AG - Germany
Seidenfaden, Tøger - Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken
- Denmark
Sutherland, Peter D. - Chrmn., BP, Chrmn., Goldman Sachs Int'l
- Ireland
Tremonti,Giulio - Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies -
Italy
Trichet, Jean - Claude-Gov., European Central bank - France/International
Vinocur, John - senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune
- USA
Wallenberg, Jacob - Chairman, Investor AB - Sweden
Wolf, Martin H. - Assoc. Editor & Econ. Commentator, Financial
Times - UK
Wilson, Ross - U.S. Ambassador - Turkey
Wolfensohn, James D. - special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement
- USA
Wolfowitz, Paul - Outgoing Head of the World Bank - USA
Wooldridge, Adrian D. - Foreign Correspondent, The Economist -
UK
Zoellick, Robert B. - Deputy Secretary of State - USA
Zumwinkel, Klaus - Chrmn. Of the Board of Mngmnt., Deutsche Post
AG - USA
|Top|
Manchester, N.H. - Just as Nero fiddled when ancient Rome burned, the modern American media is dancing around the issues as America confronts political, moral and financial bankruptcy - borrowing billions of dollars per month just to keep its bloated government afloat. But at least Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), one of the 10 Republican presidential candidates in the nationally televised debate June 5 at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., can read the proverbial writing on the wall.
Though you would never know it by reading the local newspapers or by seeing polls on TV, Paul is the only candidate who meets an objective constitutional standard - the only one who always looks to the Constitution on matters such as war and peace (and on less weighty issues).
The local daily newspaper's weak headline on June 6, under the big words "Republican Rumble," was Candidates Try to Define Themselves." but Paul's distinctive remarks based on his consistent constitutional stance are self-defining, clearly setting him apart from the other candidates - as some foreign reporters noticed.
On the evening of the debate, the press room, in a separate building from the debate arena on campus, was filled with print and radio reporters from around the world - Austria, Switzerland, Holland, China, Japan, Britain and several other countries.
Paul was mobbed by some of these reporters, including this AFP writer, in the "Spin room" right after the two-hour debate. There, Paul told a British reporter that he may be realigning the American political scene, bringing together Libertarians, independents and disgruntled Democrats who see no one worth voting for among the eight democratic presidential contenders.
Indeed, Paul's eldest son, Ronnie, told AFP that a May 19 rally in Austin, Texas, for his father drew 700 people representing an interesting cross section of voters.
"You've never seen a more diverse group at any rally of any party," the younger Paul told AFP, saying that everyone from spikey-hair radicals, to more conservative 20-some-things, to elderly folks and others were on hand.
The congressman told AFP that the unifying themes that resonate with Americans from many walks of life are opposition to President bush's increasingly unpopular interventionist foreign policy, the need for much lower taxes and the concept of individual liberty.
The latter concept was embodied in the question of homosexuals in the military.
When asked during the debate whether the Clinton-era "Don't ask, don't tell" policy should be allowed to stand, Paul's answer cut to the core of the matter. While all 10 candidates agreed homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military openly flaunting their sexual orientation, Paul explained to the debate audience at Sullivan Arena that rights are not "group rights." They are "God-given, to the individual," he said, adding that such an issue wouldn't be an issue if rights were not assigned to women, racial minorities, homosexuals and others as groups.
By applying rights only to the individual, this military social policy question answers itself. "Disruptive homosexual behavior and disruptive heterosexual behavior should be equally dealt with" according to the code of military conduct, Paul said during the debate. Later, he told reporters, "Treat everybody the same."
The other GOP presidential contenders besides Paul and Huckabee are: Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.
The four-year Iraq War was the dominant theme for the first half hour of the debate and resurfaced several times. The candidates differed a little on some details, but only Paul - the lone contender who pointed out in past debates that there was no congressional declaration of war in the first place - called for a speedy troop withdrawal.
Biuliani, McCain and Romney stood center stage and are constantly called the three "top tier" candidates by the poll-driven mass media such as debate sponsors CNN (the televiser) and The New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper. The paper's photographic coverage focused on these three.
Romney, referred to by an outside protestor as "Flip" Romney for allegedly telling voters what they want to hear rather than speaking his true convictions, said in the debate that he supported Bush's decision to attack Iraq "based on what we knew at the time."
He said: "The right thing for us to do is to see if we could possibly stabilize the central government in Iraq so they can have stability, and so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible."
This open-ended call for stabilizing Iraq before any troop withdrawal, even as President bush calls for more troops on the ground, parrots the stance of Giuliani, McCain and the other candidates.
TACTICAL NUKES OK?
Amazingly, most of the candidates wold not disavow using tactical nuclear weapons preemptively against Iran should that Mideast nation possess or develop nuclear weapons. Paul vehemently disagreed with the others, saying, in response to the question asked of each candidate on what is the most pressing moral issue, that preemptive war is the great moral issue of the day, in his view.
"We need to go back to or traditions and the Constitution," Paul said, standing up near center stage during the less structured second half of the debate. He called for no more gun-barrel democracy - no more regime changing through "force of arms."
He also made an oblique statement on the irony of the other candidates' pro-life statements while they express a willingness to use nuclear weapons against Iran, which he said possesses no navy, no air force, no intercontinental missiles - in other words, no way of projecting its forces against the United States.
ANOMALIES EVIDENT
During the debate, Paul and Tancredo were placed at opposite ends of the stage, while Giuliani, Romney and McCain were side-by-side in the middle. Most people questioned by AFP so far about this arrangement and other debate details said they didn't find it particularly troubling, though signs of media manipulation did appear.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told AFP that the 10-term congressman was, according to initial estimates, questioned eigtht times during this debate and spoke for just six and one-half minutes out of two hours of commercial-free airtime - not the least amount of questions but the least amount of time.
But Paul, who will take part in the important Iowa straw poll, told AFP that the amount of time he was given to speak on TV at this debate is not a big issue.
"I'll get more time as the time goes by," Paul said.
"Hopefully there's more value in my words."
|Top|
It is a well-known fact that Americans have deserted establishment medicine in large numbers for the kinder, gentler therapies of alternative and complementary medicine. Some estimates indicate that over 40% of us are voting with our feet. In addition the Internet and easy availability of medical letters and health books has helped people educate themselves about the benefits f nutritional supplements and the inadequacies of recommended daily allowances (RDAs).
This has to have impacted the income of organized medicine as well the drug industry. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed a new regulation currently up for comments on its web site, which, if it can be successfully implemented, will bring these unprofitable trends back under control. It will also ease the way for passage of the enabling legislation waiting in Congress to put the World Trade Organization's Codex Alimentarius in place. If this happens we can say a sad farewell to the idea of optimal health because the means to achieve it will be beyond reach.
If you want some freedom of choice in your health care you had better act now. Register your opinion on the FDA's web site and notify your representatives and senators. Better yet - tell them that, if these regulations are implemented, you will vote for their opponents at the next election!
It is common knowledge that we have the most expensive healthcare in the world, but its overall quality is poor. According to the World Health Organization, Japan has the best quality care. The United states is number 37 on the list, partially because of U.S. costs. How did this happen to us? To find out we have to look back.
According to John Pugsley's book The Alpha Strategy, the practice of medicne was uncontrolled in the first half of the 19th century. There were schools for allopathic, homeophathic, naturopathic and faith healers and many people learned their art through apprenticeship, but anyone, with or wothout training could hang out a shingle and practice the healing arts. Many physicians would up as suicides, possibly because there were too many. There was a need for change. Homeopaths were the first to form a medical association in 1846. The allopaths followed their lead with the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1847.
For about 50 years after it was formed by 255 physicians, the AMA was a democratic self-governed body of professional men. However, according to an article published in The Illionois Medical Journal on December 1922, titled "The AMA Becomes an Autocracy," it was eventually reorganized into a highly centralized machine with absolute control concentrated in a single individual. The grassroots members, 9,000 out of 100,000 practicing U.S. physicians, lost their freedom of choice. They could vote at the state level of the organization, but it was almost impossible for them to influence the upper levels.
Just after the reorganization, the AMA's headquarters, including the office of the editor of its journal was a single rented room. But it didn't take long for that to change.
Dr. George Simmons of Lincoln, Neb., the new editor and the initiator of the rorganization, quickly turned The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), into a gold mine. There were no dues; its advertising income paid all the association's expenses and generated a larg surplus. In a few years Simmons moved into a new, concrete and steel, seven-story building, in a prestigious chicago location, with a staff of 300 people. It is not hard to figure that the drug puchers were substantial contributors to AMA's new affluence. Questions remained. Did the AMA buy its political influence with drug company money? And if it did, what was the quid pro quo?
With the purse strings safely in his hands, Simmons, who earned an M.D. in 1882 at the Hahnemann Medical College, a homeopathic institution, proceeded to enlarge the AMA's power and influence. By 1904, recruitment efforts tripled membership to 30,000 and 20 years later the majority of "regular" physicians in private practice in the United States were enrolled.
Moving toward control of medical education, the AMA proposed that all medical students should have a suitable preliminary education and that a uniform set of requirements should be adopted in all medical schools in the United States. During the latter halfof the 19th century it induced state legislatures to pass laws requiring licensing of physicians. In 1904 its Council on Medical Education reviewed the quality of medical education in 160 medical schools and approved 82 of them. In 1910 it issued a report recommending closure of a large number of these schools, raising "standards" of the remainder and reducing enrollments of students.
State legislatures responded by giving the AMA responsibility for establishing standards for medical education. Now, in order to become a practicing physician, students had to graduate from AMA-approved schools. In effect the AMA won the power to dictate what medical students were taught.
Control of hospitals was another objective. Legislatures were induced to add internship and residency requirements to licensing laws and give the AMA responsibility for approving hospitals for this training. Hospitals wanted this approval because it provided them with cheap labor. They offered no resistance to the requirement that they limit their staffs to members of local medical societies. This forced most practicing physicians to join the local societies and adopt their code of ethics which proscribed activities which might threaten the welfare of other members like price cotting, advertising and the like. Violators could be punished by expulsion from thelocal society with loss of staff status in hospitals - the kiss of death for their careers.
In effect the state legislatures abdicatied their authority in favor of the AMA. Economist Ruben A. Kessel opined that: "Delegation by state legislatures to the AMA of the power to regulate the medical industry in the public interest is on a par with giving the American Iron and Steel Institute the power to determine the output of steel."
AMA TARGETS ITS COMPETITION
As the American Medical Association (AMA) grew in power over the years, it did its best to eliminate any competition from more traditinal forms of medicine. Dr. George Simmons, the driving force behind the advance of the AMA, began a crusade against so-called "quacks and charlatans" which still endures today.
In this writer's experience, one of the fundamental problems with medicine today is its ignorance of nutrition. This was not unintentional. Graduates of AMA-backed courses have a deficiency in knowledge of nutrition which the father of medicine, Hippocrates of Cos, considered to be very important.
By definition, anything other than the practice of orthodox medicine was quackery, and those involved were charlatans. The given objective was to protect the public, but quite clearly eliminating competition and controlling the practice of medicine was high on the agenda.
Between 1900 and 1925, during simmon's reign, the AMA moved to suppress at least three medical innovators: Dinshah Ghadiali, Ph.D., Harry Hoxsey and Willion F. Koch, Ph.D., M.D.
Ghadiali, a many talented Parsi whiz kid from India, reportedly made a fortune with a patent on the use of the sprockets for movie film. He is said to have spent 30 years developing theory and equipment, known as the Spectrochrome and the Itsetometer, for light therapy. He taught physicians and others how to heal with this benign therapy.
One of them, Dr. Kate Baldwin, who had been senior surgeon
at the Philadelphia Women's Hospital for many years, reported
at a Pennsylvania Medical Society meeting on Oct. 12, 1926, the
colored light is the simplest and most accurate therapeutic measure
ever developed. She said that she had experimented with this therapy
for six years and that, after 27 years of medical practice, believed
she could produce faster and more accurate results with colored
light than with any other method and with less strain on the patient.
She owned several Spectrochome devices and thought that their
use in the treatment of burns whold be investigated by every member
of the profession.
Ghadiali was sued for fraud and finally bankrupted. His instruments
were declared illegal to use, and they confiscated and destroyed.
His books and papers, except for his library, were burned.
Harry Hoxsey inherited an herbal cancer cure developed by his grandfather on his father's death. Prevented from attending medical school by an AMA blackball, he opened a cancer clinic with Dr.. Bruce Miller in Taylorville, Ill, in 1924. Those able to pay $300 were provided lifetime care. It was free for indigent patients.
In 1925 Dr. Henry carstens, soon to be president of the AMA, satisfied himself that the treatments worked and offered to buy him our for a pittance. When Hoxsey refused, the AMA stated a vendettaof legal harassment.
It finally ended when the Texas legislature was goaded to pass a bill in 1957, which made it illegal for physicians to work for non-physicians. This forced him to close the largest cancer clinic in the world which had been successfully curing cancer patients in Texas for over 20 years for a $400 fee that indigent patients were not required to pay.
As a graduate student, William F. Koch published scientific papers in 1912 and 1913, which showed that removing parathyroid glands was fatal to patients. Subsequently surgeons ceased removing them. Simmons praised him in a JAMA editorial in 1913. As a medical student in 1917, he cured a terminal cancer patient with an experimental injectionof an extract of heart and brain tissue. In 1919, Dr. Henry Carstens, representing Simmons, failed to induce Koch to sell his new therapy. In that year Simmons called Kock a quack in an editorial in JAMA.
Local AMA authorities refused requests for official tests of Koch's therapy. They demurred even though cancer rates in the Detroit area, where his therapy was used for 20 years, were lowered by 20%, while rates increased by 30% in the rest of the country.
In 1941 Koch vacationed in Brazil where he taught Brazilian medical personnel how to make and use his medications at the request of Brazilian officials. His success earned the enmity of American pharmaceutical distributors there according to reports. Returning to the United States,at the request of the FDA to discuss labeling, he was arrested in Florida and jailed as the first violator of a 1938 law to prevent the sale of unsafe medications. After two trials, which cost him $400,000 and kept him under indictment for 4 years, the FDA, unsuccessful in their attempt to convict him, gave up. In 1948, Koch left the country for brazil saying he couldn't afford to live in his own country.
It is interesting to note that the FDA never claimed that Koch's medications were unsafe. FDA officials first claimed that they were only distilled water and therefore ineffective. Subsequently they claimed that the active ingredients were acids and that the acids were ineffective. They never actually tested his medications. Was this because an honest test would have destroyed the legal basis for a trial?
In 1922, Simmons survived a revolt by the Illinois Medical Society, but a personal scandal caused his resignation two years later. By 1925, his protégé, Dr. Morris Fishbein, who never practiced medicine, was firmly in place as his handpicked successor. He quickly became a driving force for AMA public relations. A well-oiled publicity machine began issuing an unending stream of propaganda to every available media.
His activities as newspaper columnist, medical editor of Good Housekeeping Magazine, and advisor for many popular magazines provided contact with science writers. Exploiting an opportunity, the AMA Board of Trustees hosted a meeting with the National association of Science Writers in 1937.
This resulted in the following statement being added to their "code of ethics":
Science writers are incapable of judging the facts of phenomena involving medical and scientific discovery. Therefore they only report discoveries approved by medical authorities, or those presented before a body of scientific peers.
In 1940, the United Press also accepted AMA censorship of the medical news as evidenced by this bulletin:
Under no circumstances pugt any story on the leased wire about a remedy. If the bureau manager is convinced that the story has merit, he should overhead it to New York for investigation and consideration there.
These policies were effective, according to testimony by Arthur Connell, the national commander of the American Legion, before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Connelll remarked: "A contract exists between the state medical associations and the newspapers, which makes it virtually impossible for the veteran's side of medical questions to reach the reading public." In his testimony Connell cited a Denver Post editorial attacking medical aid to war veterans, which investigation proved had been written by an official of the Colorado State Medical Society.
Censorship of the medical news was of inestimable value to the AMA in harassment and persecution of medical heretics, i.e., anyone engaged in the unorthodox practice of medicine. It prevented the public from hearing "the rest of the story."
The unquestioning acceptance of AMA propaganda by the media permitted spokesmen for the AMA, like editor of the JAMA Fishbein, to figuratively get away with murder. However, ultimately Harry Hoxsey was able to sue him for libel and win!
During Fishbein's administration, the destruction of new medical technologies generated by the self-taught genius Royal Raymond Rife was effected. His microscopes, of unrivaled capability to this day, still exist, but essential parts are missing, rendering them unusable. With them Rife became the first person to view a living virus.
Both the Smithsonian Institution in Washington and the Franklin Institution in Philadelphia celebrated Rife's achievement with publication of the same laudatory article, which also described the new FCA electron microscope less effusively. His laboratory notes, micrographic records and movie films, which recorded his discoveries, were all destroyed in a mysterious fire. His ray machines, which benefitted 15 out of 16 terminal cancer patients with three-minute irradiation three times a week for 90 days, were declared illegal to use. They were confiscated from physician offices by the FDA and destroyed. Meanwhile fishbein warned AMA members not to use them if they wanted to keep their licenses.
Recent FDA persecution of Stanislaw Burzinski, M.D., who developed antineoplastons (small peptides which have been found capable of reprogramming cancer cells into normal cells) has revealed its uninterest in personal medical tragedy. In 1996, the FDA sought to limit the availability of his medications to patients involved in medical trials. There was convincing evidence that his would have caused the death of other patients under treatment. The FDA attorney's stated opinion was that resulting harm to these patients was "irrelevant."
Burzinski's patients have been fortunate enough to obtain congressional hearings, which have blunted the effects of FDA policies, but their vendetta continued.
Somehow our government bureaucrats have acquired the power of life and death over our children. An example is the case of Shawn McConnell's son Zach, whose supply of antineoplastons was cut of by FDA fiat in 1996. According to Daniel Haley and recorded in his book Politics in Healing, FDA's Dr. Robert Delap decided not to allow a resupply, and the child died. Even congressional attention couldn't save his life.
Many years have passed since Fishbein was dethroned and hew people are in charge of the AMA, but their inclination to persecute purveyors of unorthodox medicine persists. Even now a third of the alternative medical practitioners in the state of Washington are under siege. The leopard has not changed its spots.
Can we afford to leave medical education in the hands of a medical jafia, considering the amount of financial, physical and emotional damage caused by the poor quality of medical care that the World Health Organization says we are getting? A reinvigorated medical establishment, utilizing the advanced technologies that the AMA and its affiliates like the FDA have been in the habit of squelching, could substantially reduce medical costs, which have been spiraling out of control for too long.
The FDA, which receives large sums of money from pharmaceutical
(drug) companies, has been an effecgtive enforcer for the AMA.
If we allow it to gain more power, there will be little chane
to stop the continuing deterioration of our health which has happened
while our food supply and medicines have been under their control.
For our own safety and the safety of our children, the power of
our out of control FDA must be reduced.
|Top|
Disease mongering, the practice of pushing disease in order to sell more drugs, has become so routine and so successful in modern medicine that drug companies actually depend on inventing new diseases as a way to ensure future profits. It's not enough to sell drugs to people who are truly sick, you see. Big Pharma cleverly figured out that they could sell even more drugs if they simply invented new "diseases" and convinced people they needed pharmaceuticals to treat those diseases.
The FDA, always happy to serve the profit interests of Big Pharma, went right along with the ploy and legalized television and magazine drug ads in 1997. Since then, drug sales have skyrocketed, drug company profits have ballooned, and fictitious disease diagnoses have proliferated at an alarming rate.
Diseases such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder are completely fictitious, invented by a panel of psychiatrists with a simple vote. Conditions like "High Cholesterol" aren't diseases at all (they're simply descriptions of blood chemistry), and artificially lowering high cholesterol with statin drugs has been scientifically found to offer no net health benefit. Breast cancer is so frequently misdiagnosed that, for every one woman helped by cancer screening and treatment, 10 are harmed by it. "Restless Legs syndrome" is so routinely marketed and hyped that people who hadn't even heard of the disease two years ago now think they need patented chemicals to treat it.
By honest assessment, pharmaceutical medicine today is all a grand hoax.
INVENTING DISEASE IS CHILD'S PLAY
How easy is it to come up with a fictitious disease or disorder that the public will think is real? It's incredibly easy. I even wrote a web tool that will generate new diseases for you at the click of a button. Visit my disease mongering engine and you can get filthy rich inventing your own fictitious diseases starting right now.
I'm not the only one who has come up with hilarious ways to make fun of disease mongering by the drug industry. Justine Cooper created an entire website dedicated to a fictitious disease and a fake drug for treating it. The site, havidol.com, claims to be a patient education site for Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder, or DSC-DAD for short.
Not surprisingly, the public bought it, and Ms Cooper has been contacted by hundreds of people wanting to know where they can buy the drug to treat DSCDAD. (Didn't they "get" the drug name, "Havidol"? As in, "Have it all!") Even some members of the media fell for the hoax, reporting DSCDAD as a real disease requiring treatment with Havidol.
In another parody on YouTube.com, a web site that allows people to post homemade movies on the Internet, artists created a fake commercial for "Motivational Deficiency Disorder," formerly known as just being plain laxy, and recommended drugs for treatment.
A NATION OF HYPOCHONDRIACS
The bottom line in all this? Drug advertising has turned America into a nation of hypochondriacs. By simply inventing some disease name, then getting easy FDA approval for a drug to "treat" it, drug companies can create a billion-dollar market where none existed previously. All they have to do is convince everyone they're sick or diseased and given the complete lack of medical skepticism among consumers, doctors and regulators these days, that's frighteningly easy.
This fraudulent Big Pharma recipe for making money is so effective that the industry is now increasingly focusing on marketing diseases. If a so-called "disease" can be swallowed by the gullible mainstream media, and believed by brainwashed doctors and consumers, then drug sales will automatically follow.
Getting people to believe there's something wrong with them,
of course, is amazingly easy. Why Because everybody's life is
in turmoil at one time or another. There's not a person alive
who doesn't feel pressure, or anxiety, or challenges, or failures
sooner or later. Drug companies want you to believe those feelings
are diseases when, in reality, they're just part of life.
|Top|
Life Extension Institute, in its June 2007 magazine, reports that the drug industry is attempting to politically modify science by having Congress classify DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone) as an anabolic steroid. If they succeed this substance will become an illegal drug and possession will merit jail time. Concurrently it will become another bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry.
On March 5, 2007, S.762 and H.R.1249 were introduced into the
Senate and the House respectively. If enacted into law they will
classify DHEA
as a controlled
substance under the Anaboic Steroid Control Act. Sen Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah), is opposing S.276 noting that DHEA was specifically
exempted from thelist of banned anabolic steroids because there
is no evidence that it poses any health problems.
This substance is a hormone, naturally present in our bodies, which decreases in concentration as we age. A substantial amount of published scientific research clearly indicates that DHEA supplementation has many beneficial anti-aging effects. It has been marketed as a dietary supplement for over 10 years. The fact that numerous studies are indicating that it may reduce heart attack risk makes it a serious threat to Big Pharma.
Related drugs are said to generate more profits than any other class of pharmaceuticals. Relatively inexpensive DHEA, on the other hand may already be having an effect on Big Pharma's sales.
Coincidentally there is a study circulating in Congress, which is being used to convince scientifically naïve congressmen that DHEA is dangerous. As in many cases of medical research, it is carefully designed to confuse. Conclusions, are based on gene expression studies, which few physicians would be able to interpret. Further more mice in the study were given excessive doses of DHEA, 300 times the equivalent of the 50 milligram dose most people take.
Life Extension Institutes notes that the lead author holds patents whose value could be substantially increased if this legislation passes. Nevertheless the paper itself doesn't disclose this conflict of interest.
More information can be obtained at lef.org/featured-articles/dheafact.
|Top|
Most drugs are actually poisons - they work by poisoning, selectively, part f your metabolism. An example: Byron Richards devotes on chapter of his excellent new book, Fight for Your Health, to bone drugs, increasingly popular in these days when so many elders are plagued with osteoporosis. Supposed to combat creeping bone weakness, these drugs actually make things worse.
Here is the theory behind bone drugs such as Fosamax: Your bones are living tissues that contain various types of cells, notably osteoclasts and osteoblasts. One set of cells (which are severely poisoned by bone drugs) tears down bone - especially stressed or damaged bone. The other set (apparently also poisoned but to a lesser degree) - builds ne bone. As long as the two teams of bone cells are in balance, everything is fine.
This view sees bone metabolism as a kind of race between the bone-removing and the bone-building teams of cells, and seeks to fix the race by hobbling the bone removers.
But healthy bone needs both kinds of cells, working in balance. Killing the bone removers results in denser bone, yes, But also in abnormal and disorderly bone development.
Nearly all doctors push poison. Why? Well, Big Pharma, the Big Pharmaceutical business, has representatives who take doctors out to dinner, buy them fancy sporting tickets and free vacations, as well as free pills. Most doctors, partly out of ignorance and Rockefeller-foundation sponsored miseducation, have sold out your health to these pill pushers.
Worse, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now fully controlled by Big Pharma, which wants us to be sick so they can sell us their expensive poisonous drugs for the rest of our lives. Billions of dollars are being made by keeping as many Americans as possible as sick as possible, for as long as possible.
This is just a sampling of the blockbuster information contained in the Richards book, which also contains proposals as to just what we can do to change this horrible situation. This is a book that should be read by everyone concerned about the health of Americans.
You can order a copy of fight for Your Health: Exposing the
FDA's Betrayal of America, by Byron J. Richards (paperback), 264
pages, $21, #2449) from First amendment Books, 645 Pennsylvania
Ave. SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. No charge for S&H
inside the U.S. Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free to charge books
to Visa or MasterCard.
|Top|
According to the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA). Consumption pf soft drinks is now over 600 12-ounce servings per person per year. Since 1978, soda consumption in the United States has tripled for boys and doubled for girls. Young males age 12 to 29 are the biggest consumers at over 160 gallons per year - that's almost two quarts per day. At these levels, soft drinks contribute as much as 10% of the total daily caloric intake for a growing boy.
TARGETING THE YOUNG
Huge increases in soft drink consumption have not happened by chance - they are due to intense marketing efforts by soft drink peddlers. Coca-Cola, for example, has set the goal of raising consumption of its products in the United States by at least 25% per year. The adult market is stagnant, so kids are the target. According to the January 1999 Beverage magazine, "Influencing elementary school students is very important to soft drink marketers."
Since the 1960s the industry has increased the single-serving size from a standard 6-and-one-half-ounce bottle to a 20-ounce bottle. At 7-Eleven stores the most popular size is now the 64-ounce "Double Gulp," not to be confused with the "Super Big Gulp," which is a whopping 44-ounces and the "Big Gulp," which is 32 ounces.
Soft drink companies spend billions on advertising. Much of these marketing efforts are aimed at children through toys, cartoons, movies, videos, charities and amusement parks; and through contests, sweepstakes, games and clubs via television, radio, magazines and the internet. Their efforts have paid off. Last year soft drink companies grossed over $57 billion in sales in America.
In 1993, District 11 in Colorado Springs became the first public school district in the United States to place ads for Burger King in its hallways and on the sides of its school buses. Later, the school district signed a 10-year deal with Coca-Cola, bringing in $11 million during the life of the contract.
This arrangement was later imitated all over Colorado The contracts specify annual sales quotas with the result that school administrators encourage students to drink sodas, even in the classrooms.
While our children are exposed to unremitting publicity for soft drinks, evidence of their dangers accumulates. The most commonly associated health risks are obesity, diabetes and other blood sugar disorders, tooth decay, osteoporosis and bone fractures, nutritional deficiencies, heart disease, food addictions and eating disorders, neurotransmitter dysfunction from chemical sweeteners, and neurological and adrenal disorders from excessive caffeine.
EARLY WARNINGS
Warnings about the dangers of soft drink consumption came to us as early as 1942 when the Council on Food and Nutrition made the following statement: "From the health point of view it is desirable especially such use of sugar as is represented by consumption of sweetened carbonated beverages and forms of candy which are of low nutritional value. The Council believes it would be in the interest of the public health for all practical means to be taken to limit consumption of sugar in any form in which it fails to be combined with significant proportions of other foods of high nutritive quality."
Since that time the first notable public outcry came in 1998, 56 years later, when the enter for Science in the Public Interest (CSP) published a paper called "Liquid Candy" blasting the food industry for "mounting predatory marketing campaigns especially aimed at children and adolescents."
In "Liquid Candy" CSPI revealed that even though, over a period of50 years, soft drink production increased nine times and by 1998 "provided more that one-third of all refined sugars in the diet. The AMA and other health organizations remained largely silent."
BONE FRACTURES
Over the last 30 years, much information has been published linking soft drink consumption to a rise in osteoporosis and bone fractures.
New evidence has shown an alarming rise in deficiencies of calcium and other minerals and resulting bone fractures in young girls. A 1994 report published in the Journal of Adolescent Health summarizes a small study (76 girls and 51 boys) and points toward and increasing and "strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in girls." The study concluded with the following: "The high consumption of carbonated beverages and the declinng consumption of milk are of great public health significance for girls and women because of their proneness to osteoporosis in later life."
PHOSPHORIC ACID & TOOTH ROT
Now that soft drinks are sold in almost all public and private schools, dentists are noticing a condition in teenagers that used to be found only in the elderly - complete loss of enamel on the teeth. The culprit is phosphoric acid in soft drinks, which causes tooth rot. Dentists are reporting complete loss of the enamel on the front teeth in teenaged boys and girs who habitually drink sodas.
SPORTS DRINKS
Students are now being given "electrolyte" drinks called "ergogenic aids" to replace electrolytes that are allegedly depleted during workouts. There are three problems with using these drinks as a rehydration solution. First, most soft drinks are diuretics, meaning they squeeze liquids out of the body, thus exacerbating dehydration instead of correcting it. Second, most people actually lose few electrolytes during exercise. After exercise the body is usually in an electrolyte load having lost more fluids than electrolytes, If sweating has been profuse, electrolytes can be replaced by drinking a lacto-fermented beverage or pure mineral water, that contains a proper ratio of minerals (electrolytes), and by eating a healthy diet containing Celtic Sea Salt. Third, when we give sugar-laden drinks to dehydrated kids, the high sugar content requires that blood be sent to the stomach to digest it. This fluid shift can lower the blood volume in other parts of the body making them more susceptible to cramps and heat-related illnesses.
STIMULANTS & VIOLENCE
The Industry has begun to market so-called stimulant soft drinks, which usually consist of higher-than-usual levels of caffeine, along with other stimulant compounds. According to an article published in the December 2000 issue of The Lance, the Irish government ordered "urgent research" into the effects of so-called "functional energy" or stimulant soft drinks after the death of an 18-year-old who died while playing basketball. He had consumed three cans of "Red Bull," a stimulant soft drink.
The article noted there have been reports of a rise in aggressive late-night violence occurring when people switch to these drinks while drowsy from too much alcohol. The resulting violence was so pervasive that some establishments in Ireland have refused to sell stimulant drinks. The entire European community has taken the problem seriously enough to ask the EU's scientific community to examine stimulant sodas and their effect on food and health safety, but no such outcry has been heard in the U.S.
In the meantime, the relentlessly ambitious and wealthy soft drink companies with their hip life-style ads manage to seduce ever increasing numbers of consumers, most of them our kids.
Judith Valentine received her doctorate in nutrition from the
American Holistic College of Nutrition and completed her clinical
internship in residence at the Capital University Clinic of Integrative
Medicine in Washington, D.C., where she was certified as an integrative
health practitioner. She is also certified by the American Association
of Nutritional Consultants and is on the teaching staff at Anne
Arundel Community College. Dr. Valentine prov des wholistic nutrition
education to individual clents and works with corporations to
develop wellness policies for their employees. She can be contacted
at (410) 626-0978 or doctorjav@aol.com.
This article appeared on theweb site of the Weston A. Price foundation,
PMB 106-380, 4200 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20016;phone:
(202) 363-4394; on the web at westonaprice.org.
|Top|
Just days after Bilderberg celebrated President Bush's "surrender" on global warming, leaders of the world's industrialized nations accepted it at the Group of Eight summit near Rostock, Germany.
Heads of G-8 nations embraced bush's proposal that the world's top 15 greenhouse-gas emitting nations meet and agree to non-binding goals for reduction by the end of 2008. President Bush called for this action while Bilderberg was gathering to address climate control, among other issues, at its secret meeting in Istanbul, Turkey.
Just a week earlier, administration officials had reiterated Bush's opposition to such international cooperation. Bilderberg celebrated what members called the U.S. "Surrender," but complained it was not enough. G-8 leaders decided it was enough.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, host of the G-8 summit, applauded the agreement with Bush as a"huge success." While there are no mandatory targets, she said, "no one can escape this declaration," considering the gravity of the issue.
Tony Blair, outgoing prime minister of Britain who has participated in several of Bilderberg's secret meetings, also applauded Bush's new position. Several G-8 officials attend Bilderberg, which schedules meetings shortly before G-8 summits as a matter of control convenience.
The hope is the planned 15-nation talks will result in participating nations - including India and China and other developing nations not part of the G-8 - reaching a consensus on non-binding goals for reducing global warming. The countries would then go about reaching those goals in a manner consistent with their economic and other national interests, Bush said.
"What the United states proposed, and what I think got endorsement here, is a process where all the relevant countries can participate in the selection of that goal," Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, told reporters. "One of the features I think all agreed to is there needs to be a long-term goal to substantially reduce those emissions. There are, obviously, a number of ideas as to how that should be done, and what that goal should be."
Little if anything was publicly uttered about Bilderberg's complaint - with approval of American members - that the "surrender," although welcome, was too little because the United States remains outside the Kyoto Treaty. This is welcome news to Americans because the Kyoto Treaty would impose heavy economic burdens on Americans while exempting chain-smoke producers - including India, China and Mexico - from any responsibilities.
In another development, Turkish officials continued to deny that an invasion of Kurdistan across the border in Iraq is planned. During the bilderberg meeting. Turks denied a military buildup or an impending attack, despite screaming headlines and strident stories saying Turkish troops had already invaded northern Iraq. Both Americans and European Bilderbergers urged Turkey not to attack. Turkey is seeking admission to the European Union and tried to avoid offending member states.
Although the headlines continue, as of this writing there has
been no major attack by Turkey. There have been some small incursions
to chase Kurdish guerrillas who attack in Turkey, officials said,
but troops returned when the "hot pursuit" ended. The
Turkish military has been battling separatist Kurdish rebels since
they took up arms in 1984.
|Top|
More than 40bills aimed at ending Bush's undeclared war in Iraq are pending in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Said they will put troop-withdrawal timetables in upcoming defense-spending bills despite backing down in May when President bush vetoed a similar-funding bill over a similar measure.
Mrs. Pelosi plans to use a defense appropriations bill as a vehicle for legislation by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) That would revoke the war authorization and begin a pullout of U.S. troops. She promised a vote in September on a bill by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) that would begin a troop withdrawal in 90 days and limit future U.S. military operations in Iraq.
"Debates and votes on the Iraq war - including rescinding the original authorization for the use of force, a timetable for redeployment of U.S. troops and other amendments to the appropriations bill - are likely throughout the summer," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told The Washington Times.
"We are fairly well set up now as to how we're going to do it and when," Reid said, When the Senate takes up the $648 billion defense-authorization bill for fiscal 2008 at the end of June, Reid plans to attach an amendment by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the armed Services Committee, that would reduce troop levels in Iraq in 120 days.
Reid is also considering none Senate bills that would pull out U.S. Forces or limit troop levels and a proposal to end Congress 2002 war authorization. Pending Senate bills include five for troop withdrawal, four to limit troop levels, two setting benchmarks and one to de-authorize the war. Another bill just introduced by Sens. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) a nd LaMar Alexander (R-Tenn.) would make the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which advocated a goal to redeploy troops from Iraq, official U.S. policy.
Reid does not favor the Salazar-Alexander bill because it has no firm deadline to reduce troop levels.
Iraq war legislation in the House hopper includes 15 with pullout timetables, four to undo the war authorization, three that limit troop levels andothers that would set benchmarks for progress, ban permanent U.S. bases in the country and require Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should leave.
With violence unabated in Iraq (3,504 American troops dead as of this writing) Republican leaders said they are looking for signs of progress by September. That is when Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, is to report on the success of his troop-surge plan to secure Baghdad.
"No one can predict what the general's report will include
now, but Republicans will continue to make decisions based on
the guidance of our military commanders on the ground and the
best interests of the country - not on the sensibilities of politicians
on Dapitol Hill," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio.).
|Top|
Although action in the United States Senate this week has slowed passage of the amnesty bill, it is not yet dead as President bush remains committed to this approach. That is why the president recently suggested that those of us who oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants are unpatriotic. Those of us who strongly oppose the new immigration reform bill before the Senate "don't want to do what's right for America," the president said I reject that assessment as unfair and inaccurate.
Supporters of the amnesty bill like to claim that border protection is their first priority. But if enforcement of our borders is the highest priority, certainly a much shorter bill could have been written. Even better, why not enforce existing laws? According to our Constitution, Congress makes the laws that the executive branch is to enforce. The rush to pass this new law seems to obfuscate this simple fact. There are plenty of laws already in place, so it seems sensible to largely solve this problem with out new laws.
To make maters worse, as I wrote in a recent column, some 120 of our best trained border guards are going to be sent to Iraq to help them with border enforcement. In addition, National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start on the Mexican border are scheduled to also be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
This legislation purports to crack down hard at our borders, but as we have learned time and time again, you cannot address enforcement until you address incentives. That is why you cannot have border security with an amnesty program in place: the incentive of amnesty undermines any crackdoen on border protection and in fact just makes work for our Border Patrol all the more difficult.
Incentives in place to those would come to the United States illegally will remain in place if this legislation is passed. Illegal immigrants will still receive federal assistance and free medical care and their children will still gain automatic citizenship after this bill is passed.
We need to face the fact that securing our borders means more than legislation, or fences, or even more border Patrol. It means removing incentives for people to come to the United states illegally in the first place. That is why I will once again introduce an amendment to the Constitution to end birthright citizenship this coming week.
Although the "reform" of immigration in the amnesty bill is enough to cause alarm, other highly troubling provisions are tucked away that will serve to undermine our sovereignty and weaken our civil liberties. According to the most recent version of the senate bill, the misnamed security and Prosperity Partnership for North America is to be "accelerated." It seems ironic that a project aiming to actually weaken U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada would be added into a bill that purports to toughen border controls.
Also, this bill will bring us closer to a national ID card, which without a doubt runs counter to American values and history and will punish American citizens without doing much to counter those who would come here illegally.
I strongly disagree with the president that opposing this legislation
is unpatriotic. I believe we have an obligation to reject any
legislation that promises amnesty to those here illegally, and
that undermines the sovereignty and privacy of American citizens.
|Top|
Even as the debacle in Iraq grows worse by the day - with both Iraqi civilian deaths and U.S. Military deaths escalating - the strongest proponents of the initial American invasion Iraq - the hard-line pro-Israel "neo-conservatives" (civilian war hawks all, none of whom ever served in the Military) - are banging the drum more loudly for American military action against Iran.
But the good news is that there are growing voices daring to point out that Israel and its American adherents are behind the push for war.
The most vociferous demands for an American war against Iran are coming from a nest of Zionist hard-liners in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Ironically, these boisterous troublemakers are screaming for war just at the time when Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, is facing 30 months in prison after being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, crimes committed amidst a cover-up of misdeeds relating to the Bush-Cheney drive (orchestrated by the neo-conservatives) to get the United States embroiled in Iraq.
While Libby himself was the actual "head of the octopus" among the Zionist war agitators inside the administration, his role has been picked up by the insidious team of Elliot Abrams and David Wurmser, two disturbing characters indeed.
According to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), an outspoken critic of the Bush war policies, Abrams, the deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy (and the son-in-law of ill-famed Marxist Trotskyite-turned-neo-conservative publicist Norman Podhoretz of the American Jewish Committee) is perceived to be running the administration's Middle East policies. This is not a good sign, since Abrams - another "former" Trotskyite himself - is considered an all-out pro-Zionist fanatic, in keeping with his family's agenda.
Abram's father-in-law, Podhoretz, recently penned the lead article in the June 2007 Issue of Commentary, the longtime voice of the American Jewish Committee, entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran." this amazing article was followed by yet another essay entitled "How china and Russia Threaten the World." And yet another essay in that same Issue, one written by Israeli writer Hillel Halkin, candidly asserted that Israel has no serious intentions about giving up any land to the Palestinians or granting Palestinians any right of return to their native land. Halkin's essay said, in no uncertain terms, that virtually any Israeli concession to the native Christian and Muslin Palestinians would be a threat to Israel's survival.
Meanwhile, Abrams's partner in intrigue inside the Bush-Cheney regime for national security affairs - is equally enmeshed in the same warhawk circles as Abrams.
A Swiss-American Dual citizen - whose wife Meyrav is a partner with former Israeli Mossad official Yigan Carmon in the Middle East Media research Institute, an Israeli propaganda outlet - Wurmser is known to have been a public relations and political strategy advisor to former (and possibly future) Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, another intimate relationship demonstrating the clout Israeli interests have in the Bush-Cheney policy-making apparatus.
On capitol Hill, the most strident and certainly best known voice for war against Iran is Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) - often touted by the mass media as "the conscience of the Senate" - who has pulled no punches in loudly calling for a U.S. attack on Iran.
Although grassroots Democrats in his home state kicked Lieberman out of the Democratic Party for his warmongering, democrats all across the United States - who reveled in their party's massive victory in the 2006 congressional elections, largely a repudiation of the Bush war in Iraq - are now feeling the sting of repudiation by their own arty leaders in Congress who have essentially surrendered to Bush on the issue of Iraq.
What many grassroots Democrats do not understand is that their party leaders - at the highest levels - are on the receiving end (just as are Republicans) of vast amounts of campaign money from pro-Israel political action committees and those whom former Gen. Wesley Clark candidly described as the"New York money people" who are sympathetic to the interests of Israel. Since Israel demanded the U.S. attack Iraq, congressional democrats voted in favor of the war and then, when it became politically convenient and expedient to denounce the war (at election time), they did so.
However, in the end, when the issue has come to a vote on the floor of Congress, those democrats have returned to the fold of their money masters and have effectively continued to endorse the war in Iraq (and done nothing to stop the ongoing push for war against Iran).
That simple reality escapes the conception of most democrats, who are confused and angry at the betrayal by their leaders. Few are willing to publicly point the finger at the power of the Israeli lobby as the driving force behind that betrayal.
But many military voices in opposition wo what is undeniably the Zionist influence on U.S. foreign policy are continuing to speak out. For example, on May 27, 2007, writing in The Washington Post, yet another former military officer, retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich - a West Point graduate who served in Vietnam and who is now a professor of international relations at Boston University - restated his long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq in a poignant commentary reflecting on the fact that his son had recently been killed there.
Noting that althogh the November 2006 elections"signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament" Bacevich pointed out that while "the people have spoken ... nothing of substance has changed and half a year later, the war continues with no end in sight."
Instead, he said, "by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as ‘the will of the people.'" But Bacevich also places the blame for the ongoing war on the democratic Party leadership, who - during the month of May 2007 - continued to effectively support the war, despite all of their partisan rhetoric in opposition to the war. Bacevich wrote:
To be fair, responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son's death, my state's senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son's wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass.
My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the mecessity of ending the war, I got the brush-off. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: "Don't blame me."
To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove - namely, wealth individuals and institutions.
When Bacevich was making reference to "wealthy individuals and institutions," there can be no doubt that Bacevich was referring to the people and institutions - wealthy all - that make of the powerful Israeli lobby. His further comments drove home that point:
Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing.
When Bacevich mentioned "bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies," this was obviously a reference to Israel's Christian fundamentalist supporters and to Israel, since the only Middle East "ally" of the United States that favored U.S. intervention in Iraq was Israel. To drive home his point about the combination of the American system by all of these well-heeled interests, Bacevich added further:
Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our mis-adventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.
Undoubtedly cognizant of the fact that for having made such
comments, he may well be accused of being a "conspiracy theorist,"
even an "anti-Semitic" one, Bacevich concludes: "This
is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.
|Top|
This news article is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced here.
However, It can be read on the Internet at:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070605_evil.htm
|Top|
