March 2&9, 2009
- Mossad Link Found to One of Key 9-11 Hijackers
- Was Financial Collapse an Orchestrated Event?
- New York Times Falsifies History of Federal Reserve
- Arizona as Dangerous as ‘Pakistan,' Says Top Phoenix Cop
- Stats Reaffirm Autism-Vaccine Link
March 16, 2009
- STATES SEND WARNING TO FEDS
- Can U.S. Economy Ever Recover?
- Many Republicans Up in Arms Over GOP's New Leader
- Fearing Backlash, House Spikes Automatic Pay Raise
March 23, 2009
- Global Elite Picked Obama Long Before Voters
- Can Patriots Compete with Hollywood? One Independent Producer Says ‘Yes'
- Israel Nixes Obama Pick
- Congress: Now Is Not the Time for 9,000 Earmarks Worth $8 Billion!
- Texas Activist Urge Broad Action To Fight Institution of National ID
- Has FDIC Been Pushed to the Brink of Bankruptcy?
March 30, 2009
- Jewish Lobby Says Hillary Too Pro-Palestinian
- Holder Living Up To Reputation As Gun Grabber
- American Middle Class Now the ‘Homeless Class'
- Lawyer Challenges Chief Justice to Probe Obama
- Organic Farmers Targeted
A NEW ISRAELI CONNECTION to the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001 has recently been unveiled. Buried in a New York Times story on Feb. 19 was the eye-opening revelation that a Lebanese Muslim Arab who has been taken into custody by the Lebanon—which has accused him of being a spy for some 25 years for Israeli intelligence—just happens to be a cousin of one of the Muslims alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers.
Although Ali al-Jarrah was—publicly—an outspoken proponent of the Palestinian cause, it now turns out that he was actually working as a paid asset of the Mossad for more than two decades, betraying his own nation and conducting spying operations against Palestinian groups and the pro-Palestinian party Hezbollah.
The New York Times, reporting on the al-Jarrah affair, revealed this: "It is not the family's first brush with notoriety. One of Mr. Jarrah's cousins, Ziad al-Jarrah, was among the 19 hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." The Times added that the men were 20 years apart in age and "do not appear to have known each other well."
The gratuitous Times suggestion that the two cousins "do not appear to have known each other well" is intriguing, inasmuch as it is an admission that they did, in fact, know one another. And that could be very telling, for there are those who are now suggesting that the older cousin may indeed have recruited his younger cousin as an asset for Israeli intelligence.
The circumspect stance taken by the Times is no surprise, considering the fact that the Times is quite aware of the fact that there have been many sources—including American Free Press—which have alleged that the 9-11 conspiracy was infiltrated, if not controlled outright, by Israeli intelligence from the beginning.
If the younger al-Jarrah was indeed an Israeli asset inside the 9-11 conspiracy, this would not be the first time that a Muslim Arab was involved, acting as a Mossad agent, in an attack on the World Trade Center. As far back as August 3, 1993, investigative reporter Robert I. Friedman revealed in New York's Village Voice that Ahmad Ajaj, a 27-year-old West Bank Palestinian held in federal custody for conspiracy in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, may have been a Mossad mole, according to Friedman's sources.
Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport on Sept. 1, 1992, after he arrived on a Pakistani International flight from Peshawar carrying a forged Swedish passport and bomb making manuals. He was taken into custody, and subsequently pleaded guilty to entering the country illegally.
Ajaj's traveling companion was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi who law enforcement sources say was a "key player" in the first World Trade Center bombing.
And it should be noted that it was Ajaj who was the source of the famed "al Qaeda terrorist manual" that was widely touted by the FBI in the wake of the second World Trade Center attack in 2001. In addition, Ajaj's colleague—Ramzi Yousef—is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohamad, whom the U.S. government has said was the "mastermind" of the 9-11 attacks.
In this regard, it is also important to point out that, for many years even prior to the first attack on the World Trade Center, there were many figures in Islamic circles who believed that Mohamad and Yousef were actually undercover assets for Israel.
Although the FBI identified Ajaj as a senior intifada terrorist, with links to Hamas (the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization), Kol Ha'ir, a respected Hebrewlanguage weekly published in Jerusalem, said Ajaj was never involved in intifada activities or with Hamas or even the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Instead, according to Kol Ha'ir, Ajaj was actually a petty crook arrested in 1988 for counterfeiting U.S. dollars out of a base in East Jerusalem. Ajaj was convicted of the counterfeiting charges and then sentenced to two-and-a- half years in prison.
According to Friedman, writing in The Village Voice: "It was during his prison stay that Mossad, Israel's CIA, apparently recruited him, say Israeli intelligence sources. By the time he was released after having served just one year, he had seemingly undergone a radical transformation."
Friedman reported that Ajaj had suddenly become a devout Muslim and an outspoken hard-line nationalist. Then, Ajaj was arrested for smuggling weapons into the West Bank, supposedly for Fatah al-Islam, a faction of the PLO.
But Friedman says this was actually a sham. Friedman's sources in Israeli intelligence say that the arrest and Ajaj's subsequent deportation were "staged by Mossad to establish his credentials as an intifada activist. Mossad allegedly ‘tasked' Ajaj to infiltrate radical Palestinian groups operating outside Israel and to report back to Tel Aviv.
Israeli intelligence sources say that it is not unusual for Mossad to recruit from the ranks of common criminals."
After Ajaj's "deportation" from Israel, he showed up in Pakistan, where he turned up in the company of the anti-Soviet mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan. (Incidentally, Andrew Allen, a wealthy San Francisco character who likes to take on assignments for the CIA to prevent boredom, admitted under oath "running" supplies into Afghanistan. He was also instrumental in destroying Liberty Lobby and its newspaper, The Spotlight.)
This could indicate that Ajaj was working for the Mossad, for—according to Covert Action Information Bulletin (September 1987)—the funding and supply lines for the mujahideen were not only the "the second largest covert operation" in the CIA's history, but they were also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of Deception), under the direct supervision of the Mossad. Ostrovsky wrote:
It was a complex pipeline, since a large portion of the mujahideen's weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai. After Ajaj's ventures with the mujahideen, he popped up in New York and purported to befriend members of a small so-called "radical" clique surrounding the blind Sheikh Abdel-Rahman, who was accused of being the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing.
On Feb. 26, 1993, the actual day of the World Trade Center bombing, Ajaj was "safe" in federal prison serving a six-month sentence for entering the country on a forged passport. Later, he was indicted for conspiracy in the WTC bombing.
According to Robert Friedman, "If Ajaj was recruited by Mossad, it is not known whether he continued to work for the Israeli spy agency after he was deported. One possibility, of course, is that upon leaving Israel and meeting radical Muslims close to the blind Egyptian sheikh, his loyalties shifted."
However, Friedman also reported another frightening possibility: "Another scenario is that he had advance knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing, which he shared with Mossad, and that Mossad, for whatever reason, kept the secret to itself. If true, U.S. intelligence sources speculate that Mossad might have decided to keep the information closely guarded so as not to compromise its undercover agent."
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
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|
In an admission stunning for its frankness Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-Pa.) chairman of the House Capitol Markets subcommittee admitted on C-SPAN that the current economic problems were the result of an "electronic run on the bank" that resulted in the hemorrhaging of $550 billion in just "an hour or two."
Kanjorski was accosted by an irate American caller charging that the economic stimulus package is solely for the benefit of fat cats on Wall Street rather than for Joe Six-pack on Main Street. With barely concealed panic in his voice, the congressman tried explaining the severity of the financial problem with the following comments:
Why did we do that? We did that because. . . .Look, I was there when the secretary of the treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve came and talked with members of Congress about what was going on, it was about Sept. 15. . . . Here's the facts; and we don't even talk about these things.
"On the previous Thursday [Sept. 11] at about 11 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of 550 billion dollars, being drawn out in the matter of about an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help, pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized they could not stem the tide. . . . We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done this, their estimation was that by 2 o'clock that afternoon, 5.5 trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, which would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. . . .
We talked about what would happen—it would have been the end of our economic and political system as we know it, and that's why we had to act and do things quickly. Why? Because if you don't have a banking system you don't have an economy, and although we did that it wasn't enough. The economy has been falling and we're really no better off today than we were three months ago, as other assets are going sour by the moment. . . .
Somebody threw us in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean without a life raft and we're trying to determine which is the closest shore and whether there's any chance in the world to swim that far. We don't know. . . .
Put in less "gentle" terms, the 2-hour/half-a trillion
dollar/$4.6 billion-per-minute event Kanjorski described was
the equivalent of having a major economic artery "Jack-the-Rippered"
in a way that threatened the very existence of not only the U.S.
but the entire world whose economies and political stability
are intrinsically tied to the monetary good mood of the land
of the free and home of the brave. According to some of the economic
experts interviewed for this piece (who insisted upon anonymity,
due to the "sensitive" nature of the topic) it is one
of the largest—if not the largest—singular transfers
of money in history in such a short time frame.
Furthermore, the general consensus of those interviewed is that had the bloodletting been permitted to run its course—meaning the evaporation of 5.5 trillion dollars—it would have resulted in the elimination of 90% percent of America's liquidity (again the "blood" that keeps the economic body alive) in the span of just five hours.
Based upon the unnerving words of the congressman in this television exchange, what is known is as follows:
First, that the potentially apocalyptic events leading up to the bailout of America's banks are not "talked about," something to remember when President Obama or his monetary magicians are promising "this and that" with regard to curing America's economic ills. By the very words of Rep. Paul "Vallachi" Kanjorski, a "code of silence" exists among the "made members" of the political and financial elite preventing them from telling the truth. The fact that it took close to five months for this information concerning a deliberate run on the banks to be made public is proof that the captain and crew of the Titanic have decided to allow the passengers to go about their lives unencumbered while they try to find a way to "deal with" the current situation.
Second, that on Sept. 15, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Shalom Bernanke testified before Congress that on the previous Thursday, Sept. 11, an "electronic run" on the U.S. banking system took place between the hours of 9 and 11 am. . . . That had stop-gaps not been executed, by 2 p.m. (again, on Sept. 11) the hemorrhaging of "$5.5 trillion" would have taken place, resulting in the collapse of not only "the entire economy" of the United States but as well of the world within just "24 hours," leading to "the end of our economic and political system as we know it."
Eliminating the possibility that the event was all part of some fluke or "market correction," the congressman ended his comments by saying "someone" was responsible for the slashing of that financial jugular that nearly bled America to death, as well as indicating the worries on the part of the power elite in Washington as to whether or not at the end of the day America would survive it, despite the unprecedented transfusions.
The date on which the hemorrhaging is said to have taken place, Sept. 11, is the same date America's financial headquarters were attacked seven years earlier. It started the "war on terror" benefitting a certain ethno-theocratic state in the Middle East. The time frame this monetary hemorrhaging is said to have taken place was between 9 and 11 a.m., which coincides with the time frame of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,* with the first tower being struck by an airliner shortly before 9 a.m. and the second tower collapsing at roughly 10:30 a.m.
People who note the hundreds of "odd" items dealing
with 9-11, including but not limited to the arrest of hundreds
of Israeli intelligence operatives, some seen cheering as the
Twin Towers were crumbling, will consider that the current financial
crisis—rather than being an "accident"—may
be another act of sabotage on the part of the same malicious
entity."
——
* Get a copy of AFP's 20-page special report on the Sept. 11
terror attacks called 50 Unanswered Questions About 9-11. All
color. Presented from a viewpoint that the federal explanation
of the events of 9-11 is not believable. 1-5 copies are $5 each.
6-39 copies are $1.85 each. 40-499 copies are 90? each. 500 or
more are 75? each. Order from AFP: 1-888-699-NEWS. Use Visa/MC.
A former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn is a prolific writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and his wife Vicki and their eight children maintain a ranch in northern Idaho. His book, No Beauty in the Beast, can be easily ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB (1-877-773-9077) for $25 ppd.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The New York Times published a flat-out untruth on Feb. 7 about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. And the untruth came from the pen of a distinguished American academic who is author of many much-touted works of history.
In a commentary in the Times, entitled "The Value of Other People's Money," Dr. Melvin I. Urofsky, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, reflected on the origins of the congressional measure that created the Federal Reserve System. He said that the measure "allowed Congress to take away banks' control over currency." In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Dr. Urofsky was dead wrong. The New York Times was guilty of perpetrating a falsehood, something which should come as no surprise, considering the fact that The New York Times—which fancies itself America's newspaper of record—has long been the daily media voice in the United States of the international banking dynasties that control the American money system through their domination of the Fed.
The truth about the nature of the Fed is no secret to Americans who have access to independent newspapers such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS, historical journals such as THE BARNES REVIEW and radio outlets such as Republic Broadcasting (which can be found on the Internet at republicbroadcasting.org).
In fact, as far back as the 1920s, the great American industrialist Henry Ford was warning Americans of the venal nature of the Fed and the plutocratic money masters who created the Fed and who controlled it then as they do today. Ford wrote:
What the people of the United States do not understand and never have understood is that while the Federal Reserve Act was governmental, the whole Federal Reserve System is private. It is an officially created private banking system.
Examine the first 1,000 people you meet on the street, and 999 of them will tell you that the Federal Reserve System is a device whereby the United States government went into the banking business for the benefit of the people. They have an idea that like the Post Office and the Custom House the Federal Reserve is part of the government's official machinery. . . .
Take up the standard encyclopedias and while you will find no misstatements of fact in them, you will find no statement that the Federal Reserve System is a private banking system; the impression carried away by the lay reader is that it is a part of the government.
The Federal Reserve System is a system of private banks, the creation of a banking aristocracy within an already existing system of aristocracy, whereby a great proportion of banking independence was lost, and whereby it was made possible for speculative financiers to centralize great sums of money for their own purposes, beneficial to the people of the United States or not.
In addition, while there has been much written on the Federal Reserve and the reality of what it constitutes— a privately owned and privately controlled money monopoly in the hands of banking institutions—the fact that the Rothschild family of Europe was, ultimately, the primary force behind the establishment of the system on American soil, is not something that is fully understood.
For example, because there were no people named "Rothschild" at the famous meeting off the coast of Georgia at Jekyll Island where the framework for the Federal Reserve was put forth and where the planning for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the Fed, there are those who would divorce the Rothschild family altogether from the circumstances. However, the fine hand of Rothschild was indeed on the scene, represented by Paul Warburg of the New York-based Kuhn, Loeb Company, which was under the control of longtime Rothschild associate Jacob Schiff.
Despite all of this very clear history—which has been outlined by numerous authors such as Wyckliffe Vennard, Eustace Mullins, and Dr. Martin Larson, the preeminent among them—modern-day media propagandists (and we must include the aforementioned Dr. Melvin I. Urofsky among them)—continue to present the Fed as precisely the opposite of what it really is. That Urofsky is assisting in the perpetration of the fraud is particularly egregious in light of the fact that he is a much-published author of such volumes as:
* American Zionism from Herzl to the Holocaust;
*We are One!: American Jewry and Israel;
* Commonwealth and Community: The Jewish Experience in Virginia;
* Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History; and
* A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States.
And these are just a few of the works to which Urofsky has added his name.
Those who wish to contact Urofsky and provide him factual information about the Federal Reserve System (of which he is apparently unaware) may contact him by email at murofsky@vcu.edu or write: Dr. Melvin Urof sky, 919 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, Va. 23220.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
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|
Local authorities call the wave of kidnappings an epidemic. According to the Associated Press, some of the hostages have their fingers, legs, and heads cut off; while others are bound and gagged in pools of water before being zapped with electrical devices. If the victim is female, she is often raped while her husband is forced to listen on the other end of a telephone line. If their demands aren't met, corpses are soon discovered in the desert, gunshot wounds to the skull and body.
Do these descriptions originate from Afghanistan, a brutal Iraqi prison, or the war-torn region of Somalia? No, all these reports came directly from the southwest portion of the United States. Specifically, Brian Ross of ABC News reported, "Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside Mexico City, and over 370 cases last year alone."
On average, this means there is one kidnapping every day. Arizona radio host Darrell Ankarlo says two or three abductions go unreported for every one that is. The vast majority of kidnappings are connected to Mexican drug cartels and illegal immigrants coming across the border. Phoenix Police Department detective Phil Roberts states quite clearly, "Phoenix is ground zero for illegal narcotics smuggling and illegal human smuggling in the United States."
The motive is obvious. Whereas drug dealing and scurrying illegals through the desert brings in billions of dollars, Tim Gaynor of Reuters reported that "ransoms can range from $50,000 to $1 million."
The reason kidnappers demand such a high price is because their targets are often "coyotes"—drug smugglers or dealers who carry large amounts of cash. As Detective Roberts said, "There's a lot of illegal cash out there in the valley, and a lot of people want to get their hands on it."
Kidnappings have largely been contained to the Mexican crime underworld. Although overseen by drug lords, the actual perpetrators are illegal aliens looking for a quick buck, or cheap Mexican laborers. Sam Quinones of the L.A. Times describes the process used to locate these "grunts."
"Certain Phoenix bars are known as places where kidnappers recruit, much the way builders go to Home Depot to hire day laborers."
Phoenix police have traced the source of this activity directly back to Sinaloa, a state in western Mexico. As Quinones explains, "Sinaloa is the state where drug smuggling in Mexico began. Most Mexican cartels originated there. Kidnapping is how they collect their debts."
As AFP has documented over the past few years, Mexico has become one of the most violent countries in the world, with approximately 10,000 murders in the past two years. Roberts characterizes the situation as near anarchy. "The vice president of the Bank of Mexico has to go to work with armed escorts."
Although still relatively contained within the Mexican drug cartels, the kidnapping spree is spreading. Phoenix Police Chief Andy Anderson told ABC News, "If it doesn't stop here, if we're not able to fix it here and get it turned around, it will go across the nation."
Another law enforcement officer compared the Arizona border to that of Pakistan. Kidnappings are also on the rise in San Diego and in Texas. Mexican drug cartels have published lists of Americans, including law enforcement officials, who are targeted for assassination.
Despite establishing a Home Invasion Task Force, Phoenix police realize the battle is daunting. Lieutenant Lauri Burgett lamented about the drug syndicates, "It's been a secret society in a lot of ways because so much of it [their activity] goes unreported."
The federal government has been of little help. As Brian Ross says, Phoenix officials are troubled because they say "Washington, D.C. is too obsessed with al Qaeda terrorists to care about what is happening in their own backyard."
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Which of these is more important to American politicians—drug company profits or kids? Judging from the recent action of the government of the state of New Jersey, drug company profits win hands down. Late last year New Jersey parents were ordered to have their children get flu shots before Dec. 31, 2008, if they wanted them to attend school or day care establishments.
These flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury in the form of thimerosol. This contains 50% mercury and breaks down in the body to form ethyl mercury, a very toxic compound. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, children who receive three flu shots are 27 times more likely to develop autism than those who do not.
Years ago the same thimerosol used in vaccines was tested as a topical ointment for cure of umbilical cord infection. Children whose bodies couldn't excrete mercury fast enough died. Physicians involved in the test recommended that thimerosol be banished from hospitals.
Dr. Boyd Haley, chairman of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky, after disclosing these facts at a meeting, asked: "Knowing this who, in his right mind, would inject this substance into the bodies of young children?"
Unfortunately, the Center for Disease Control would. They promoted multiple vaccinations of young children, with vaccines containing 12.5 micrograms of mercury per shot, even before their blood brain barriers and digestive systems were fully operational. Moreover they persisted for more than 15 years after Haley first brought it to their attention.
As a result of about 20 years of multiple vaccinations of our children, we have experienced an epidemic of autism, a new American disease first reported as just four cases by a physician at Johns Hopkins University. Devastated families, overloaded schools and billions of dollars of medical expense have resulted from this ill-conceived program. Autism and autism spectrum disease preferentially affect males. The female hormones are protective against these diseases.
The ratio of males to females with autism is about 4:1. A whole generation of our young men has suffered brain damage which is showing up in our universities. At Harvard some classes, which used to contain mostly young men, now have a majority of young women. At the University of Kentucky, points have to be added to test scores of young men to get them into law and medical schools.
Courtesy of our federal government, taxpayers, not drug companies or other members of the medical monopoly, are responsible for the damages caused by these vaccines. Only a few claims of injured children have been adjudicated. Meanwhile the drug medical monopoly is hard at work trying to obscure the facts about mercury and the American Dental Association is continuing to claim that its "silver" fillings, which also contain mercury, do no harm.
Jack Phillips is a writer and scientist who lives in Massachusetts. He has a degree in chemical engineering, is an emeritus member of the American Chemical Society and is a member of the society of Sigma Xi. He is also the author of Suppressed Science (softcover, 168 pages, $17) which is available from AFP, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100,Washington, D.C. 20003. Call 1-888-699-NEWS to charge to Visa/MC. No S&H in U.S.
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|
More than 20 states have passed recent resolutions in defiance of the central government's intrusion into their liberties and governing powers, with all including a demand to obey the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments. New Hampshire has issued what may be the harshest "Don't Tread on Me" caveat of all.
Citing its own state constitution, the New Hampshire Legislature has issued its recent resolution "affirming states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles" and reminding any Washington interventionists of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution as well as Part 1, Article 7 of their own state document that declares ". . . that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto . . ."
It continued: "Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: that the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,' therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and . . .
"That any act by the Congress of the United States, executive order of the president of the United States of America or judicial order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several states or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
"I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states without the consent of the legislature of that state.
"II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
"III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
"IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
"V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
"VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and "That should any such act of Congress become law or executive order or judicial order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several states individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the states seeking to form a government."
Ever since Vermont threatened secession and others of the 20-plus have issued lesser threatening notices of intentions, all have made it clear that they are not happy with the current situation, and the action of all indicates that the New World Order may have a bigger problem on its hands than it initially considered.
The 21 states so far that have either introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments or are about to do so include: Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maine, Nevada, Kansas, Indiana, Idaho, Georgia, Colorado, California, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, and, of course, New Hampshire.
In another defiance of unconstitutional federal controls, governors are telling Washington bureaucrats that, under the 10th Amendment, they cannot dictate spending or other actions to the states. ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.")
"We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state," said Arizona state representative Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called "Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment."
Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon (R) introduced a resolution he said would enable his state to "reclaim the 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment."
Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations about accepting stimulus funds because they are concerned that the federal government will dictate how it is spent.
The federal government extracts money from their taxpayers, sends a bit of it back and then dictates how it is spent, they argue.
Pat Shannan is a corresponding editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan's experiences with Tupper Saussy when the American dissident was on the run in the 1960s. Both are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS for $25 each. No S&H inside the U.S.
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|
"President Obama, are you listening?" In what has been dubbed "Rant of the Year," CNBC host and financial analyst Rick Santelli had a meltdown live on nationwide television. Reminiscent of Howard Beale's "Mad Prophet of the Airwaves" character in the movie Network, fellow commentators were concerned that mob rule would take over the Chicago Stock Exchange.
Among the highlights of Santelli's diatribe were: "The new administration is big on computers and technology. How about this, Mr. President. Why don't you put up a website to have people vote the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?"
Amid a supportive chorus of boos, Santelli asked, "How many people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"
With tensions mounting, the television personality finally announced, "It's time for another Tea Party. What we're doing in this country would make Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin roll over in their graves."
He isn't the only one firing his musket. Fox News owner and media baron Rupert Murdoch circulated an internal memo to his employees. "We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered."
The implications of this statement are enormous. He then stressed, "Many companies will be mortally wounded."
Globalist speculator George Soros agrees. Reuters reported his most recent comments: "The world financial system has effectively disintegrated, and there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis. The turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression."
He then compared our predicament to the Soviet Union's demise.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman and current Obama adviser Paul Volcker echoed this sentiment. "I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, so uniformly around the world."
Economist Nouriel Roubini, who predicted this collapse in 2005, warned that financial institutions may become nationalized to fend off further catastrophe. He told Reuters: "The United States is nowhere near the end of the banking and credit crisis."
Volcker seems to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. He told Eileen Connelly of the Associated Press, "It is evident in the United States, and not just in the United States, the central bank is taking on a role that is way beyond what a central bank should be doing." On the other hand, mirroring the aims of his New World Order allies, Volcker called for "international cooperation in creating a new regulatory framework."
Is he hinting at the establishment of a one-world bank and currency when stating, "The more international agreement we have on where we want to get to, the better off we'll be" ?
Abroad, the Chinese definitely feel squeezed between a rock and a hard place. At the 10th Annual Risk Management Convention in New York City, Luo Ping—director general of the Chinese Banking Regulatory Commission—directed these loaded comments toward his U.S. counterparts.
"We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion, $2 trillion … we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys; but there is nothing much we can do."
The reason they're in a fix is evident. If China dumps our bonds or refuses to keep buying new Treasuries, our economy will tank. As a result, the manufacturing base that China has been building for the past two decades will also collapse because we won't be able to buy their products. So, when faced with this lose-lose situation, Chinese leaders realize that if we sink, so do they.
The problem, however, is even worse than Ping conveyed. At the much-ballyhooed fiscal summit in Washington, David Walker—former comptroller general under President George W. Bush—told President Obama, "We are $11 trillion in the hole on the balance sheet, but the problem's not the balance sheet. It is off the balance sheet, with $45 trillion in unfunded obligations."
In other words, our government owes four times the national debt on future payouts such as Medicare, Social Security, health care and pensions. This figure is staggering, and there is absolutely no way we can cover it, especially with the spate of bailouts we've seen over recent months.
Gerald Celente brings this scenario full circle. In Russia Today, Celente predicted, "We're going to see an economic collapse the likes of which the world has never seen before. It's not only in the United States. It's going global."
Reminiscent of the 1930s where unemployment ran rampant, Celente explained how official figures aren't giving us an accurate portrait. "There are two sets of books that the government keeps. When they measure unemployment, they don't add in the people who are no longer looking for jobs because they've become discouraged since they cannot find employment for so long. And they don't include part-time workers. When you put that number into it, the [actual unemployment rate] is 13.7 percent."
Similar to a recent article in the American Free Press regarding kidnappings in Phoenix, Ariz., Celente envisions a harrowing future. "You're going to see crime levels in America that are going to rival the third world. Welcome to Mexico City. You're going to start seeing people kidnaped in this country like they do in other underdeveloped nations. It's going to be very violent in America."
With disenfranchisement on the rise, Celente wonders how we could ever trust those in power: "Read my lips. No new taxes. I didn't have sex with that woman. I smoked but I didn't inhale. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. Why would anybody believe these people? There's going to be a revolution in this country. It's going to be a tax revolt. People are one job away from losing everything."
Americans are in for a bumpy economic ride. During the 2008 election campaign, many got seduced by a message of "hope" and "change." Regrettably, eight years of George W. Bush's cheerleader tactics didn't change reality, nor will Barack Obama's slick rhetoric.
To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Howard Beale in Network bellowed, "We're as mad as hell."
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
"I strongly support affirmative action"—Michael Steele (quoted in The Washington Post 10/10/2006).
The Republican Party leadership, in its latest act of self-immolation, appointed Michael Steele, a black, as the leader of the party.
Steele is a passionate supporter of affirmative action programs that racially discriminate against tens of millions of white Americans. He also supports increased discrimination against white-owned businesses in the awarding of non-merit and non-bid minority contracts. He is opposed to the death penalty and thinks that it is disproportionately applied to blacks, even though it is applied to white murderers at 500 percent higher rate than it is to black murderers. He is also an advocate of more gun control legislation as well as a draconian, massively increased enforcement of the current laws.
In an interview with a Washington Post reporter, David Duke, the former Republican member of the House of Representatives in Louisiana and former chairman of the largest Republican district, said:
"The fact that the Republican Party appointed this black racist, affirmative action advocate to chairman will lead to a huge revolt among the Republican base. As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, To hell with the Republican Party. A new party will be built from the ashes."
Duke's statements mirror the late Republican stalwart, Col. Robert R. McCormick, publisher of the then-hugely influential Chicago Tribune. He often assailed the "me-too" GOP leadership which scuttled true-blue Robert Taft to nominate liberal Thomas Dewey, who then lost to President Truman in 1948.
David Duke is a racial realist asserting all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage. Duke has taught a course in history and international relations at the Ukrainian Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. He is a former member of the House of Representatives. for the State of Louisiana, and can be reached at Box 188, Mandeville, LA 70470.
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|
IN A STUNNING MOVE, that shows there may be hope yet for Congress, House legislators took the first few baby steps toward freezing their automatic pay raises in 2010 by voting to debate the omnibus spending bill, which includes language calling for an end to the pay hikes.
The rule on debate contained an amendment that laid out a freeze for pay increases in 2010. Republicans voted mostly in favor of it, arguing that Democrats had trapped them into voting for the rule by attaching the pay-freezing measure. Only 18 Republicans and seven Democrats voted against the rule. In 2009, House members automatically received a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million burden on taxpayers.
Emboldened by the move, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) announced following the vote that he would be pushing to take back the 2009 pay raises, which lawmakers began receiving in January:
"The current bill has a freeze for next year; we think we should freeze it for this entire session," Ryan said on C-SPAN.
In the coming weeks, the Senate is also expected to vote on whether its members should get an automatic pay raise for 2010. The good news, say Congress watchers, is that senators will likely pass language denying them the extra money, too.
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|
During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid-1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow in the process of starting a software development, joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community.
One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M. V. was a levelheaded scientist, while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing communist cause.
Early in 1992, the American half of our venture was invited to V. & T.'s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge—one her husband tried to quietly rein in.
The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:
"You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven't you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice president and you didn't do it."
The general response went along the lines that you don't vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don't vote for vice president, but the president and vice president as a ticket.
"Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon," she said. The consensus we expressed was that we didn't think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she, black or not.
"What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a communist?" she said. "Well, you will; and he will be a communist."
One of us asked, "It sounds like you know something we don't know."
"Yes, it is true," she replied. "This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.' You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be president."
She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly—as though all were foregone conclusions.
"It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black, so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."
She was obviously happy that the communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: They would give us a black president and he'd be a communist to boot. She made it obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world communism. She always asserted that communism was far from dead. She was full of details about him that she was eager to relate.
She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. "Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet."
Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I commented: "If I remember correctly, ‘Barack' comes from the Arabic word for ‘blessing.' That seems to be an odd name for an American." She replied quickly, "Yes. It is ‘African,''' she insisted, "and he will be a blessing for world communism. We will regain our strength and become the No. 1 power in the world."
She said something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for communism. America would have to be converted to communism, and Barack was going to pave the way.
So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove? Well, it's definitely anecdotal. It doesn't prove that Obama has had Soviet communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is important. It shows that Soviet Russian communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed communist to pave the way for their future.
This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed. Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30-plus years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.
Who is Tom Fife?
Tom Fife was a government contractor with an active security clearance who took notes on his trips for Defense Intelligence Agency debriefings within the Department of Defense. In 1992, following an astounding conversation at a dinner party in Moscow, he took down notes for future reference. It was long before the world ever heard the name "Barack Obama."
Students of revisionist history will remember that Bill Clinton disappeared from Oxford University in England for a while in 1970 and surfaced in Moscow (courtesy of the CIA) purportedly to be trained in communism. When the accompanying story first appeared, we could not locate its source for confirmation and cast it off as a probable Internet fairy tale. But we have since interviewed Tom Fife, blended the information with the many accusations of high-profile politicos (such as former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes) and witnessed the communistic behavior of the White House occupant, and we have no of doubt the authenticity of this amazing piece. —Ed.
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|
Once upon a time, Hollywood may have represented "the American Dream." Increasingly, however, it has become the bastion of decadence and the harbinger of our nation's decline. Falsehoods now regularly, and surreptitiously, form the cornerstones of storytelling. Not only have truths been forsaken, justice has been lost, and our very liberties put into jeopardy.
America's traditional (and Christian) values have come under relentless assault and, with Hollywood's celebrity "role models," the future for our progeny looks dim. Motion pictures masquerade as "entertainment" but are, in reality, the lead agent of our subversion.
Americana Pictures is a new motion picture production and distribution company, which plans to build a viable alternative to Hollywood and help to restore the American Dream. Perhaps this is an uphill battle, but according to company founder, Merlin Miller, the timing has never been better.
A huge, disenfranchised audience awaits. Americana Pictures looks to develop, produce and market quality motion pictures, which promote fresh talent and the best of traditional American ideals. It wants to entertain, but in responsible ways, and to inspire people to achieve greatness again, with honor and integrity.
Merlin is unusual for his business. A graduate of the United States Military Academy, at West Point, he brings a background and experiences unknown to Hollywood's elite. After several years as a military leader, he attended and graduated from the University of Southern California's prestigious Peter Stark Motion Picture Producing Program. He interned at Paramount and subsequently worked for many years in Hollywood on low budget features. He eventually left Hollywood to independently produce and direct his own shows, including the award winning A Place to Grow and Jericho.
They were each produced for under $1 million, a small fraction of the Hollywood $50 million-plus average. Can a small independent compete against the Hollywood juggernaut? Americana Pictures believes it can, if it totally avoids Hollywood and creates its own distribution model. The Internet, with its growing means of information dissemination and product marketing, can offer revolutionary alternatives to the costly, traditional Hollywood methods.
"We need to think out-of-the-box, and find ways to get our films to an increasingly marginalized audience," Merlin says. "Hollywood is out of touch and serves interests, which no longer respect traditional American values, but instead propagandize with evil intent. With low-budgets, high-quality, and seemingly controversial subject matter, we intend to create a brand name that audiences can come to rely on for great entertainment that confronts the important issues of our times. If we are to reach mainstream audiences, we know that we must entertain first, and we plan to refreshingly put real beauty and talent back on the screen. Through great characters and stories, we can inspire Americans to wake up and once again take pride in their faith, family, ethnic identity, and country."
The company is currently assembling its team and building an infrastructure. It is also planning a screenwriting workshop for early May to help develop talent—outside of the mechanisms of Hollywood. Projects currently in development include, In the Shadows of Liberty, a contemporary story of mystery, action and romance, which connects modern-day intrigues to the little known, but historically significant, assault on the USS Liberty. Also, The Liberator (aka, Arminius), written by Merlin for another company, may be produced in partnership. It is an incredible historic epic about the unification and liberation of Germanic tribes from Roman rule and oppression.
Americana Pictures, located in Gatlinburg, Tenn., can be reached through its website, www.Americana-Pictures.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
too ‘pro-Muslim' by Zionist coalitions
It had to happen: The Obama administration is under fire from the Jewish lobby. The first shot came from Abe Foxman, chief of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, a key cog in the Jewish lobby. Foxman expressed dismay that Obama appointed former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine)—who is of Arab extraction—as his Middle East negotiator.
Foxman was angry that Mitchell was perceived to be too neutral, that in the past Mitchell had not adhered to an all-out pro-Israel stance during a previous stint working to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinian refugees. Foxman expressed outrage at the idea that the United States should demonstrate any "evenhandedness" in conducting Middle East Policy.
Now the Jewish lobby is shrieking at the appointment of Charles Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the influential body that, last fall, outraged Israel by asserting that Iran's nuclear arms program was not so far advanced and threatening as Israel's supporters insisted.
Israel National News describes Freeman as "a sharp critic of Israel." Freeman upset Israel by asserting the United States should confer with Hamas, which he called "the only democratically elected government in the Arab world."
Elsewhere, the former ambassador declared:
We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism, and civil war in that country. . . .Meanwhile, we embraced Israel's enemies as our own; they responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel's efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab lands for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is unfeasible. . . . Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience—of humiliation, dislocation and death—to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, three leading congressional supporters of Israel, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and Republicans Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Eric Cantor (Va.)—an Orthodox Jew who serves as the minority whip in the House—are demanding an inquiry by the inspector general for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence into ties between the Middle East Policy Council, a private group—which has been critical of the U.S.-Israel "special relationship—that has been chaired by Freeman and which has received funding from Saudi Arabia.
One critic of Freeman's group charged it had published "anti-Semitic canards" about "a powerful Jewish cabal" in the U.S. Kirk proclaimed: "Given his close ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we request a comprehensive review of Ambassador Freeman's past and current commercial, financial and contractual ties to the kingdom to ensure no conflict of interest exists in his new position."
And his GOP colleague, Cantor, added: "Charles Freeman's past associations and positions on foreign policy are deeply alarming. His statements about the U.S.- Israel relationship raise serious concerns about his ability to support the administration's attempts to bring security, stability and peace to the Middle East."
(Apparently Kirk and Cantor believe it is entirely appropriate for Americans with close ties to Israel and foreign Jewish interests to be appointed to high office.)
Mark S. Devenow, writing on the website of the Jewish Telegraph Agency, said, "The fact that Obama would even think of appointing such a rabid anti-Israel partisan . . . ought to be alarming to every Jew who voted for this callow and insouciant person in whom the leadership of the free world is now vested."
Noting that 76 percent of American Jews had claimed to have voted for Obama, Devenow added, "Shame on us for bringing, or helping to bring, this [president] on ourselves." [Note: As AFP went to press. Freeman withdrew his name from consideration.—Ed.]
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
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|
DESPITE CLAIMS FROM THE Democratic leadership that the party would be going on a no pork diet, Democrats have been gorging themselves on spending projects over the objections of watchdog groups and taxpayers.
A new report revealed that pork-barrel spending reached levels of the absurd recently with news that pork was still on the menu when Congress approved the $410 billion omnibus spending package. The massive measure was intended to keep taxpayer money flowing to the federal government and prevent gridlock in Washington, but legislators wasted no time writing in so-called earmarks for their favorite pet projects. Earmarks refer to guarantees that are usually authored anonymously of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his home state or district.
The latest count puts the earmarks in the omnibus measure at nearly 9,000 items worth $8 billion. However, no one really knows the total yet as the package is composed of nine separate funding measures that make up a staggering 1,132 pages.
The worst examples of the pork include $200,000 for a program that removes tattoos on gang members, $1.7 million to study why pigs stink, $1 million to control crickets in Utah, $400,000 to combat bullying in Montana, $5.8 million for the Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate, and $473,000 for the racist Mexican organization National Council of La Raza which is dedicated to taking the Southwest for Mexico.
In response to the criticism, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced that the heads of the party would be pushing for additional reforms, including a cap limiting so-called earmarks to one percent of discretionary spending bills.
Schumer cited reforms to the appropriations process initiated by the Democrats upon taking control of Congress, adding that the party is looking at new proposals that deal with run-away spending.
"Here are three more things we're going to do," he said. "Next year every request is going to go online so it's not just the ones that are about to be put in the bill. Second, we're going to make [earmark information] available much earlier. And third, we've made a commitment that there will be no more than one percent as earmarks."
Republicans have been exploiting the opportunity to grandstand about wasteful spending. However, the truth is they are no better than the Democrats when it comes to pork.
On the floor of the Senate, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) railed against the spending bill, citing Republicans for shamelessly criticizing Democrats while filling the legislation with their own self-serving programs.
"No fewer than 17 different Republican senators stood up and with absolutely righteous indignation, talked about the pet projects in the stimulus bill," she said. "And guess what? Every single one of them has earmarks in this bill."
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. 20003c
|Top|
Progress has been made against a proposed Soviet-style national identification and tracking scheme commonly called Real ID, say Texas activists who have tips for others wanting to squash the plan in their states.
Austin resident Sheila Dean said there are no appropriations for Real ID itself, however, "enhanced drivers licenses containing the insecure [remotely readable] RFID chip were approved for Texas last session." Although Texas deferred funding Real ID until 2010, "we are going to settle for kecking the can down the road," Ms. Dean said.
"We need persons [in Texas and across the country] to
interact with their elected officials and tell them to reject
enhanced drivers licenses and the Federal Real ID Act [a 2005
law based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission] based
on privacy, identity security and personal sovereignty..."
Ms. Dean said. She advises the following:
• Ask Texas legislators to vote "yes" on HCR 50
- "A resolution to restore the 10th Amendment to power in
Texas," said Ms. Dean, referring to the amendment which
says that any powers not assigned to the federal government under
the Constitution automatically are reserved too the states and
the people. This principle should be defended by citizens in
all states.
The Texas Legislature convenes every two years. Now is the time to call of visit your legislator and make your voice heard, Ms. Dean said. For more information on this effort, email Texas@511Campaign.org , or call Ms. Dean at 512-687-4069. Online go to" BeatTheChip.org .
Nationwide the National Veterans Committee on Constitutional Affairs hosts a conference call every Tuesday evening around 7:30 p.m. eastern time. Anyone can call in to listen or speak. Call 724-444-7444 and enter these numbers with a pound sign: 14259#. This committee, located at nvcca.net online, monitors how many states have passed laws or resolutions against Real ID. The Number is at least 17.
Tenth Amendment issues and other proposals to give the states
more influence on federal policy are highlighted.
|Top|
The head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the quasi-private agency tasked with guaranteeing deposits up to $250,000 in U.S. Banks, can't get her script straight. First she says the agency is facing insolvency as more and more banks go under. Then, following a week's worth of bad press, she backpedals, claiming the FDIC has enough money to ride out the rest of the year, but will need a "bigger cushion" in the years to come. So what's the truth?
In a public letter to bank CEOs sent out in early March, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair stated that the FDIC could "become insolvent this year."
Mrs. Bair wrote, "A large number" of bank failures may occur through 2010 because of "rapidly deteriorating economic conditions. Without substantial amounts of additional assessment revenue in the near future, current projections indicate that the fund balance will approach zero or even become negative." Her statement was intended to force banks and other financial institutions to cough up extra money in order to pay for their profligate ways. The FDIC relies on these fees to ensure that the agency can guarantee deposits. The new emergency premiums were critical, she said given the accelerating ban failures that have been depleting the FDIC fund.
Mrs. Bair's letter sent bank executives and market analysts into a tizzy, fearing that the FDIC was on the verge of bankruptcy. With the cat out of the bag, Mrs. Bair went on television on March 9 to clarify her firs statement, saying that the FDIC is expected to muddle through this year despite the economic situation.
"We'd like to be prepared for all contingencies, so we are increasing our reserves, our assessments, so that should bolster our reserves some more," said Ms. Bair. She added that the agency has set aside $22 billion to cover any projected losses over the next year, leaving $19 billion in the remaining fund.
The problem is the deposit insurance fund stands at its lowest level in nealy a quarter century. Since January 2008, 50 banks have folded, according to FDIC statistics. In the next four years, the FDIC anticipates future bank failures to cost the agency fund more than $65 billion. As of right now it does not have the money to cover those losses. More importantly, the FDIC's projections do not take int account large banks going under. Should Citibank or Bank of America fold, it could swamp the whole system.
Ironically, the FDIC was created in 1933 after Americans lost billions in savings when banks closed down during the Great Depression. The FDIC system was established to collect fees from banks, which would be used to guarantee deposits in the event of a bank failure, But if there is not enough money in the fund, the FDIC will have to turn to the federal government - taxpayers - to bail it out.
On its web site, the FDIC trumpets that, since its founding "on Jan.1, 1934, no depositor has lost a single cent of insured funds as a result of a failure." Some analysts worry that this may change in the coming years as government tax revenues decline and the sheer volume of bad loans and devalued assets force more and more banks to close their doors, leaving bank customers in the lurch.
Legislators have already responded to the growing concern by introducing legislation, sponsored by sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) that would allow the FDIC to borrow as much as $500 billion from the U.S. Treasury ir it needs it. To make that happen, the Treasury will need to borrow money from foreign investors like China and, ironically, other banks - a monumentally stupid move, which will put future generations on the hook both to cover the principal on the loans and the interest on the debt.
Following the news over the FDIC's possible insolvency, Ms. Vair tried her best to temper increasing worries.
"It is important for people to understand," said Bair, "we're backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. The money will always be there. We can't run out of money."
She's at least partially correct.
"She is correct that the money can always be there, but
the way in which it is there is important as too whether we can
get out of the problem or go deeper in debt," said Stephen
Zarlenga, the author of Lost Science of Money. "Right
now, the government will either have to tax people or borrow
more money. But it doesn't have to be that way."
|Top|
Although many Americans focused on the successful effort to scuttle President Barack Obama's nomination of former Ambassador Charles Freeman to head the highly influential National Intelligence Council (NIC) many are unaware that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also emerged as a target of the Israeli lobby.
In the wake of Freeman's announcement he was withdrawing his name from consideration, publicly blasting what he called "the Israel lobby," charging openly that this lobby had rallied opposition against him, both The Washington Post and The Washington Times—the ostensible "liberal" and "conservative" rival counterpoints in the nation's capital—rushed to condemn Freeman for allegedly peddling what both papers called "conspiracy theories" full of "canards" of an "anti-Semitic" nature.
Both newspapers—in a variety of stories and commentaries littered throughout their pages—repeatedly raised the provocative question: "Why did Obama select for such a pivotal post a nominee with a history of making harsh comments about Israel and of criticizing U.S. favoritism for Israel?"
Implicit in that question was the suggestion the Obama administration may be poised—or is attempting to position itself—toward reassessing the U.S.-Israeli special relationship and of the U.S. attitude toward Iran's nuclear development programs which are of immense concern to Israel. In addition, there have been demands that the president himself repudiate Freeman's charges against the efforts by Israel-centric forces to derail his nomination to the NIC.
In fact, the concerns of the major dailies reflect an open unease that has appeared in journals of the Jewish lobby in America and in newspapers in Israel. For example, the national security correspondent of The Jerusalem Post warned darkly against "disturbing things about the climate in Washington these days."
In that regard, Mrs. Clinton is very much under scrutiny. Although it has not been widely reported, the fact is that after seeing the devastation wrought by Israel's bloody incursion into Gaza, Mrs. Clinton outraged supporters of Israel by urging Israel to speed up aid to Gaza. The headline "Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism," as reported by the website of the CBS affiliate in Manhattan, told the story.
The report noted that top Jewish leaders say that the "new" Clinton is "not the Hillary Clinton they used to know."
CBS quoted Mortimer Zuckerman as among those in distress. This is significant. Zuckerman, publisher of The New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report, is a prominent member of the New York City Jewish Community Relations Council and former president of the Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the official umbrella group of the Jewish lobby.
New York State Rep. Dov Hikind (D) expressed the view of many who have long been suspicious of Mrs. Clinton's real attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying, "Now, I wonder—as I used to wonder—who the real Hillary Clinton is."
Another Clinton critic, Babak Chafe, charged, "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."
As first lady—at the time when hard-line elements in Israel were working with their allies in the United States to undermine Bill Clinton's efforts to build a consensus for peace in the Middle East—Mrs. Clinton called for a Palestinian state, even in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky affair first unveiled by pro-Israel stalwart William Kristol. As a consequence, when Clinton first ran for the Senate in New York, she received barely more than half the Jewish vote even as Al Gore, the Democratic presidential candidate, was winning 80 percent. Now that she is in a policy-making position, perhaps having foresworn future elective ambitions, the Jewish lobby clearly fears Mrs. Clinton may be reverting to form.
In the meantime, although Charles Freeman was denied appointment to the chairmanship of the NIC, there is, in place, an open "war" between the United States and Israel over the question as to how far Iran has progressed in its nuclear programs.
While, for example, the chief of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, announced that "Iran has crossed the technological threshold" and that Iran's "reaching military nuclear capabilities is a matter of adapting its strategy to the target of manufacturing a nuclear bomb," Adm. Dennis Blair, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, told a congressional hearing that Israel "takes more of a worst-case approach to these things."
The Jerusalem Post's national security correspondent charged that Blair "is willing to take Iran's word on everything" and that, "on the other hand, he isn't willing to take Israel's word on anything."
Blair and other key U.S. intelligence officials— those who are not under the thumb of pro-Israel elements— clearly do not share Israel's concerns and reject the daily media bombardment of Americans with scare stories about Iran being on the verge of assembling a nuclear arsenal.
Despite all of the media-based claims about Iran's nuclear ambitions, the media is careful to omit the fact that Iran (and other Middle Eastern nations) may have an interest in nuclear weapons because of the fact that their neighbor, Israel, is one of the world's five great nuclear powers with untold numbers of nuclear weapons in place, aimed—as one Israeli geopolitical and military analyst, Dr. Martin van Crevald has admitted—at London, Rome, Moscow, and other global capitals.
However, in a recent commentary entitled "How to Deal With Iran," published in the Feb. 12 edition of the small-circulation New York Review, three influential American analysts laid waste to much of this media ballyhoo and underscored what Adm. Blair told Congress.
Although the authors—William Luer, president of the United Nations Association of the United States of America, Thomas R. Pickering, former undersecretary of state for political affairs, and Jim Walsh, a research associate in the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—have called for the transfer of Iran's program for uranium enrichment (central to weapons development) to multinational ownership and operation following negotiation with Iran, they dispute claims (coming from Israel and from pro-Israel media voices—although the authors don't pinpoint those as the source of the claims) that Iran now has enough nuclear fuel to build a nuclear weapon.
In regard to this misinformation, they wrote:
News reports and some commentators have recently claimed that Iran has enough material for a nuclear weapon. These reports referred to Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium. This is a misleading claim. To begin with, one cannot make a nuclear weapon with low-enriched uranium. A nuclear weapon requires highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and Iran possesses neither. In theory, Iran could take its stock of low-enriched uranium and enrich it to a grade required for making bombs, but its low-enriched uranium is currently under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Diverting this material for military purposes would be discovered by the IAEA. (Detection of diversion is the IAEA's technological strong suit.)
Iran's choices, therefore, are to cheat and get caught or kick out the inspectors. Either action would represent an extreme departure from Iranian strategy to date and in any case would likely precipitate military action by Israel.
In short, as the authors say, "having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon is not the same thing as having one, and having a large stock of low-enriched uranium is not the same as having the highly enriched uranium necessary for a bomb," despite the myths prevalent in the mass media.
Whether the pressures from the Jewish lobby on the Obama administration will bend the will of experienced American diplomats and intelligence officials and others who dare to counter the claims of Israel and its adherents is the big question that remains to be answered.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The choice of Eric Holder for attorney general sends an alarming signal to gun owners about how the Obama administration will view individual gun rights, as affirmed this year by the Supreme Court.
Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the District of Columbia's handgun ban, and also argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. He has supported national handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. As deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, he lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would have curtailed legitimate gun shows.
This is not the record of a man who came to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind. Holder's selection, like the appointment of anti-gun Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as White House chief of staff, tells American gun owners that Obama's campaign claims supporting the Second Amendment were empty rhetoric.
America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration. Obama has a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state Senate.
Obama vigorously portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a man who supports gun ownership. But now that he was won the election, he is surrounding himself with people who are avowed gun prohibitionists. What better indication of what to expect from Obama as president than the people he is selecting to lead his administration? This isn't a roster of devoted public servants. It's a rogue's gallery of extremists who have labored to erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.
Steve Hempfling is the president of the Free Enterprise Society, a group dedicated to removing government intrusion into the personal and business lives of Americans. He may be reached at steve@freeenterprisesociety.com
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
Top|
THEY USE METAL BUCKETS FOR LATRINES, and cook soup in discarded coffee tins warmed over propane grills. For heat, entire families huddle around lit cans of Sterno, while their only entertainment is battery-operated TVs or radios.
Transportation is found via makeshift bicycles, or grocery carts with broken wheels and rusty metal baskets. Morning showers (if you're lucky) consist of standing beneath garbage bags filled with rainwater that are poked full of holes.
After living in the express lane for decades (well beyond their means), America's largest cities can no longer hide a growing blight across their landscape. Tent cities are popping up in urban areas from Ohio to California, and Reno to Tennessee. Some of these homes are nothing more than canvas teepees propped up with metal poles, or simple shacks nailed together with rotting wooden planks. Here, the recently homeless congregate with others who've fallen on hard times in our latest "economic downturn."
This new class of poor can't be classified as stereotypical drug addicts, alcoholics, or released mental patients. Mike Harvey of the Times UK described them as "a new layer of middle-class earners—construction workers, farm laborers, retail workers, and restaurant staff."
The people inhabiting tent cities aren't generational welfare recipients living in the projects, waiting for their next check to arrive. Instead, they're the working poor who've been laid off, suffered exorbitant medical expenses, or had their homes repossessed. Now, as the American Dream dwindles and fades away, they gather together in Great Depression-style shanty towns.
The basic amenities of life no longer exist, such as running water, flush toilets, electricity, or drainage systems. Their encampments are concealed behind the bushes of grocery store parking lots, or on rocky plots of barren dirt. Their furniture consists of broken plastic lawn chairs, or wooden fruit crates. When harsh weather strikes, tents are uprooted and blown away, or their ramshackle shelters lose flimsily constructed roofs and walls. With no official sanitation services, trash piles grow around the perimeter of these enclaves.
No socio-economic groups are exempt. In Tent City, USA, whites, blacks, Latinos, men and women, young and old are all represented. Mothers with crying babies sit beside grandparents as children and abandoned dogs play in the dust. The residents don't have photo albums, heirlooms, or knick-knacks on the shelves; only memories of a better time.
Some have relatives living nearby, but pride keeps them from asking for a handout. Third World America has reared its ugly head, and as a result, the backbone of our country—everyday working class citizens—is forced to live in these harrowing conditions.
Matt Katz of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote about Lorenzo Banks, who established a tent city next to an Interstate exit ramp in Camden, N.J. Dubbed its "mayor," Banks retains dignity among his fellow dwellers by conducting weekly tent inspections and keeping trash bags neatly stacked along the railroad tracks. Fortunately, local churches contribute food and clothing so that the denizens can someday get back on their feet.
The most visible tent city to emerge can be found in Sacramento, directly in sight of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's state capitol building. The uncomfortable presence of thousands of homeless citizens has created tension in the city, with Mayor Kevin Johnson torn between safety and compassion. On the one hand, he wants to allow the installation of running water, portable commodes, and dumpsters to ease the occupants' burdens.
Conversely, Johnson told local ABC News 10 affiliate, "We do not want to create an environment where we become the homeless capital of America because we're doing such an effective job."
He also expressed his concerns to reporter Jamie Soriano of Fox News 40.
"We can not allow de facto tent cities to exist with people living in Third World conditions that are inhumane."
As a result, residents fear they'll be forced to evacuate their only homes, possibly by police. To protect themselves, tent city representatives such as John Kraintz and Luis Morales are meeting with the mayor's task force to prevent these people from being made homeless yet again.
Although many try to ignore them, brutal realities are making Americans take notice that their country is undergoing some dramatic changes that exist beyond the high-profile dollar signs of Wall Street.
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
When Chief Justice John Roberts opened the floor to questions following a recent speech at the University of Idaho, he and 5,000 people finally heard the truth about an attorney's frustrated attempts to have the court force purported President Obama to prove his natural born American citizen status.
When the audience was told after the lecture that they could ask questions, Russian-born Dr. Orly Taitz, the southern California lawyer handling the suit filed by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes et al., was the first to run for the microphone.
"I left home at three o'clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question," she said to the chief justice. "Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States? I have submitted my Lightfoot vs. Bowen case to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all none justices on January 23.
"Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his won accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief that he has hidden from you and refused to post on the docket. Additionally, my case was completely erased from the docket one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. I was Justice Antonin Scalia, and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case that was supposedly heard in conference in January 23.
"It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you, Justice Roberts, demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, to be the president of the United State."
At that point she showed Roberts a stack of papers - her pleadings and printouts containing the names of some 350,000 people who had signed the petition, and the chief justice, lassoed with no comfortable avenue of escape, surrendered.
"I will read your documents," he said. "Give them to my Secret Service agent and I will review them." Taitz had a full suitcase of documents which she then handed to a Secret Service agent who showed his ID, introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw and promised her that Justice Roberts would get them.
The tenacious Orly Taitz had done her homework well. In addition to 3,300 pages of signees of the petition, were a motion to reconsider Lightfoot vs Bowen, with all the supplemental briefs, and a copy of Quo Warrano Easterling et al. vs. Obama et al., the challenge by military officers of Obama's qualifications to be their commander-in-chief.
In addition, she included a 164-page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, attorney general, describing suspected criminal activity associated with Obama and his supporters. It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, and the mysterious impersonation of her and U.S. Army officer Scot Easterling by persons unknown. It showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court and contained information of court cases being created and fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion.
This package also contained the astounding list of 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous different Docial Security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses.
It showed the address Obama used in Somerville, Mass., attached to the Social Security of a man who, if still living, is 118 years old. It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, lying under oath. It had his school registration from Indonesia under the Name Barry Soetoto, citizen of Indonesia, religion: Muslim. Right after this page there was a page of Obama's registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names. It contained a report from federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service certificate.
Furthermore, the dossier contained a letter from a renowned expert Sandra Line, stating that there are signs of forgery in Obama's short version "Certification of Live Birth," and the original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status.
It contained 130 current job positions for Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama - but none of them was reported on the Obamas' tax returns.
All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions - well over allowed limits - were reported as fictitious positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets.
As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participation. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father.
"I missed time with my children, too," says Taitz, "because I am criss-crossing this country talking to justices of the Supreme Court, representatives, senators, FBI agents, attorney generals, U.S. attorneys; asking all of them, ‘What is wrong with you? Sid some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and you stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for your Constitution?' At least now everybody at that meeting knows the truth and knows that the leftist media thugs, such as the Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their pro-Obama, blind idiot agenda.
"I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son by exmple and
not by empty words," she said.
|Top|
Supporters of locally owned, organic farms are up in arms over pending bills in the Senate and the House that are aimed at regulating food production in the United States. The concern is that the proposed legislation would force family farmers, organic growers and even gardeners to comply with federally mandated standards for growing food.
So far, activists have been unable to point to anything that specifically would force small producers to chemically treat their crops in order to eradicate bacteria that can contaminate produce at large factory farms. But the fear is that the bills are so bague that, if signed by the president, the laws could apply to anyone who grows his own food - from the massive agribusiness all the way down to the small family garden plot.
In the Senate, the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act (S. 425) already has 29 cosponsors, while the House version, titled the Food safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) has 30.
Writing in an online news journal, Megan Prusynski, an independent journalist, speculates that the bills were hatched by agri-business giants like Monsanto, which seek to control the world's food supply for profit.
She writes that federally approved growing standards wold be defined by a new government agency called the Food Safety Administration, which would work with state agricultural agencies to impose them on growers.
"The bills ... attempt to modernize food safety and regulate
and standardize agriculture, but in the process they could threaten
organic farming," writes Ms. Prusynski. "The threat
of the new standards is that only approved seeds, fertilizers,
and farming methods could be used, and if Monsanto gets its way,
all farms and gardens will be growing their plants and using
their products."
|Top|