May 6, 2002
May 13, 2002
May 20, 2002
May 27, 2002
A Special Investigative Report On 9-11
Bilderberg will plot its stealth campaign for a world tax when the international power-mongers conduct their annual secret meeting.
High on the Bilderberg agenda this year is the creation of a united Nations "Financial Action Task Force" to promote a global levy.
The international financiers and political leaders will approach the issue stealthily when they meet behind locked and guarded doors at the Westfields luxury hotel in Chantilly, Va. May 30-June 2.
Bilderbergers know that publicly promoting a UN tax on all people on Earth would meet with outrage in the United states and else where.
But the shadowy international cabal is patient; it first proposed a direct world tax years ago and celebrates the fact that it is now in the public dialogue with little public attention or concern.
Bilderberg has presented several options: A 10-cent-per-barrel tax on oil at the well-head, a surcharge on international travel by air and sea and a charge for cross-border financial transactions.
Bilderberg also wants "tax harmonization" so high-tax countries could compete with more tax-friendly nations - including the United States - for foreign investment. They would "harmonize" taxes by forcing the rate in the United States and other countries to rise so that socialist Sweden's 42-percent level would be "competitive."
A related part of the Bilderberg agenda calls for "transparency" of bank accounts and credit cards to a UN agency yet to be established. This "transparency" would mean that an international body, at the stroke of a computer key, could examine your bank accounts, credit cards and other financial information. The IRS would have access, too.
This proposal has already come under fire from the Task force on Information Exchange and Financial Privacy, a private group headed by former Sen. Mack Mattingly (R-Ga.). Edwin Meese, attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan and former congressman and vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp are advisers.
The Task Force recognized the most important principle at issue: National sovereignty. No international body or group of nations have the right to tell other sovereign countries what their financial confidentiality policies and tax rates should be, the report said.
If financial privacy were eliminated, the Task Force warned, law–abiding citizens and businesses in any country would be in danger of having their financial information shared with corrupt and even terrorist regimes, subjecting them to extortion, blackmail, kidnaping and more. Information-sharing would drive needed foreign capital out of the United States and result in sensitive business and financial information being shared with governments and parties hostile to this country, the Task Force warned.
Bilderberg will use its immense influence to force the U.S. media to reject this report and is confident that its goal will succeed in the fullness of time. In the nears ahead, Bilderberg will dictate stories to the U.S. media about how "a fraction of a penny" paid at the gas pump will feed the starving Third-World like Christ's magical "loaves and fishes" fed the multitude 2,000 years ago.
CFR SECRECY
The council on Foreign Relations is Bilderberg's propaganda ministry and has its own code of secrecy. The CFR publishes an annual report containing a financial statement and membership roster, but conducts its important business secretly. Most Bilderberg and Trilateral boys also belong to the CFR.
Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill recently became embroiled in controversy after a CFR member violated the confidentiality policy. The March 15 New York Times reported that O'Neill criticized President Bush's decision to impose tariffs on imported steel in "off-the-record comments after a dinner speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York..."
Among the more than 200 people attending were "members of the staff of The New York Times" who are also members of the Council on Foreign Relation" noted the report, hastening to add: "But this article is based on information obtained independently."
O'Meill's speech was broadcast on the members-only page of the CFR's web site, but neither the Treasury Department "nor the spokeswoman for the Council on foreign Relations would Provide a transcript of Mr. O'Neill's remarks or permit a viewing of the webcast of his appearance."
Lisa Shields, the CFR's communications director, told The Washington Post that the Council "would not make a transcript available even if O'Neill asked them to."
Critics of the internationalist group were quick to ask the
poignant question missed by Establishment-owned media outlets,
namely, what other critical issues affecting Americans are our
elected and appointed leaders - undoubtedly traveling on the taxpayers'
dime - discussing confidentially in private globalist forums such
as the Council of Foreign Relations? After all, the CFR says it
promotes "democracy."
|Top|
The Senate has given final approval to border-security legislation without President Bush's proposed amnesty for criminal aliens as a Republican congressman chastised the the president for advocating "open borders."
The Senate unanimously approved the Enhanced Border Security Visa entry Reform Act on April 19. It is much like a House-passed bill and congressional leaders said that minor adjustments will quickly produce final legislation that President Bush will sign.
The House had passed two border-security bill, one containing amnesty and another without amnesty. The senate took up the border bill hat had no amnesty (AFP, April 22, 2002).
Until the Senate voted there remained a small danger that Bush's proposal for including amnesty for criminal aliens would be inserted into the bill, but that is remote now. However, it is likely that alien amnesty will pop up as separate legislation.
Bush's efforts to toady to Hispanic voters by sandwiching amnesty into border-security legislation and his unconcern about the southern border provoked harsh criticism by a congressman from his own party and demonstrates Bush's disregard for the future of the U.S.
His "open door" border policy with Mexico is a threat to national security, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) said in an interview with The Washington Times. Bush, he said, is the leading obstacle to controlling immigration.
Bush's views on immigration are an open invitation to new terrorist attacks.
"What we have not done is to protect our own borders, ignoring our own national security," Tancredo said. "The president is not on our side. He believes in open borders.
"Unless we do something significant to control our borders, we're going to have another event with someone waltzing across the borders," Tancredo said. "Then the blood of the people killed will be on this administration and this Congress.
He said he could not rule out another terrorist attack on the scale of 9-11 and the administration and Congress would be held responsible.
"God forbid another event, but maybe that's what it will take" for adequate immigration reform legislation to be passed, Tancredo said. "How can we stop it? Pray. Certainly you cannot rely on the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service."
Tancredo called for deploying troops along the U.S.-Mexico border to stop illegal immigration.
"What is the purpose of an army if you don't defend your
border?" he asked "The basic question is: ‘Do you
believe in borders or do you not?" If you believe in borders,
then you have to control the people who come across it."
The two-term congressman is unlikely to be invited to White House
state dinners.
|Top|
The nation's military power is depleted at a time when wider wars loom.
The use of America's Air National Guard and Reserve units to fight the war against terrorism has left the nation vulnerable to a more powerful enemy, new figures from the Pentagon reveal.
The war in Afghanistan is utilizing 60 to 80 percent of Air National Guard and Reserve forces.
Under President Bill Clinton the armed forces were reduced in strength to the point of placing the nation in harm's way.
Just to fight the shadowy al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush called up more than 53,000 Air National Guardsmen and Reservists.
Critics ask, if the military has been reduced to using part-time personnel to fight, is the quality of the armed force lessened?
Critics wonder if the "friendly fire" incidents, particularly those from an Air National Guard plane that accidentally killed four Canadians, indicate a weakening of the military.
HEAVY RESERVE INVOLVEMENT
Guard and Reserve units are flying fighter and bomber jets, cargo planes and refueling tankers. They are also fulfilling some specialized missions involving America's elite Special Operations Command.
The administration has activated all 28 of the nation's Air National Guard units that fly F-16 jets, the Air Force's top fighter jets.
No F-16 units are left in reserve in the vent of hostilities erupting in Korea or America intervening into war between the Arabs and Israel in the Middle East of President Bush deciding to escalate the undeclared war on Iraq.
"America's air shield has never been weaker since the outbreak of World War II," one retired air Force intelligence officer told American Free Press.
The stretching of America's Air National Guard F-16 units to
the limit is one reason why the administration recently cut back
on the number and frequency of flights that have been patrolling
over New York and Washington since Sept.11 Marine reserves have
also been called to active duty.
|Top|
Has Congress gone crazy? Lawmakers want Washington to decide if a grocery store can open on Main Street while approving new subsidies and pushing legislation that will make even more subsidies necessary.
Trying to hide their evil acts from public scrutiny, a group of senators have barred the public from attending vitally important hearings on a land use bill that is intended to unconstitutionally impose federal standards on local zoning boards.
The feds want nothing more than to be able to take direct control over local land use, a thought that would make the Founding Fathers turn over in their graves.
Democrats barred the public April 25 from a committee meeting and a vote on the land-use bill that will impose federal standards on local zoning boards.
Want to open a small business or build a house? Democrats ans some Republicans want Americans to have to go to Washington bureaucrats for approval.
In classic dog-chasing-tail style, Congress also put the finishing touches on farm-subsidy legislation ("Spotlight on Congress," page 8) made necessary by so-called "free trade laws even while preparing to grant President Bush Fast Track authority to negociate the expansion of NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere
Thus, more subsidies will be required in future years as more meat and vegetables produced by slave-wage labor are dumped into the united States, enriching multinational agribusinesses and impoverishing the poor and condemning the public to bad, pesticide-laden food.
Hiding the land-use hearing "was no accident; this was a purposeful sham," Mike Hardiman of the American Land Rights Association told The Washington Times. He had lined up about 8 a.m. for the hearing that was scheduled for 9:30 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The senators are trying to pass an indefensible bill in secret, he said.
Senators are using the standard federal device of offering lavish funds to cash-strapped localities if they behave as Washington dictates. If not, the funds from those taxpayers will be sent to more obedient communities.
The bill establishes a federal grant program that would pay communities up to 90 percent of the cost of updating their local zoning regulations. The subsidies would go to municipalities that meet Washington "guidelines" established under the administration of Bill Clinton to "improve environmental quality" and "avert loss of community character," among other federal dictates.
A Senate aide at 9:20 told Hardiman and others gathered to watch the vote that the time and place of the hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee had been changed. It had been moved to "the President's Room" to which the public is denied access.
When Hardiman and others demanded to know where and when, they were told only "somewhere in the Capitol between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m."
The precise place was posted only after more than a dozen members of the public had left the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Committee members gathered in the off-limits President's Room shortly after 10 a.m. to approve the Community Character Act (S.975) on a 12-7 vote.
Sen. James Jeffords (I-Ver.), Chairman of the committee and sponsor of the bill, tried to get the legislation approved on a voice vote to keep names off the record. But Republicans insisted on a recorded vote.
"Some of our members wish to be recorded," said Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).
Voting in favor of the bill were Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) And Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Democrats Max Baucus (Mont.), Harry Reid (Nev.), bob Graham (Fla.), Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) Barbara Boxer (Dalif.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Tomas Carper (Del.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Jon Corzine (N.J.) and Jeffords.
Voting against the power-grab were Republican Sens. Michael Crapo (Idaho), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.), Christopher Bond (Mo.), George Voinovich (Ohio), Bob Smith (N.H.), James Inhofe(Okla.) and Warner.
Asked about the room change, Republicans said it was beyond their control because Democrats, as the majority party in the upper chamber, run the committee.
The shift was a "sneaky bait and switch," said Patricia
Callihan of the American Association of Small Property Owners.
"We are furious about what happened. We're going to have
to put a tracking device on this legislation. It's harder to find
than gold."
|Top|
The "Get Saddam Club" is gaining ground. And, not surprisingly, one of its loudest cheerleaders is none other than Ariel Sharon.
Pundits are floating trial balloons to get public reaction that America, perhaps as early as this summer, will strike Iraq with an invasion by up to 250,000 soldiers. It is clear that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is largely the one behind this push for war against Iraq.
As American Free Press reported previously, Israel is prepared to use its nuclear arsenal to destroy Iraq's ability to strike with rockets.
Sharon has made it clear to President Bush, through Vice President dick Cheney and secretary of state Colin Powell, that if America does not destroy Iraq's war-making ability, Israel will strike. That would mean an all-out conflagration throughout the Middle East.
Israeli fighter-bombers are ready for take-off loaded with nuclear bombs and cruise missiles to strike both Iraq and neighboring Syria.
Many military experts argue that Saddam Hussein, if he has developed weapons of mass destruction, intends them for defensive purposes, realizing he will never achieve sufficient capability to successfully attack America or Israel without bringing about the destruction of his country and much of the Arab world.
ENRAGING
meanwhile, Sharon has locked Israel into a war against far inferior Palestinian forces, wiping out Palestinian homes, crushing within them thousands of women and children and enraging much of the world.
America more and more is standing alone as the war clouds darken the skies of the Middle East.
Successive American administrations, giving in to the demands of the Israelis to deny the Palestinians the right to a homeland and self-determination, have brought the United states to the brink of Armageddon.
As Israeli fighter-bombers await their take=off orders from Sharon, American military bases are bustling with activity under a crash program to prepare for an invasion on Iraq.
This time, unlike the Elder Bush's Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, it will be a military endeavor that America will have to fight mostly alone, without a broad-based coalition of allies.
There is little doubt among military analysts that America will be able to crush Iraq, but this time it will cost far more in American lives and dollars.
America, prodded by Sharon, is being forced into a needless, bloody and aggressive war for which it does not have time to adequately prepare.
Today, however, America is only a shadow of the military power that it was when Clinton took office in 1993.
America's naval power has been drastically reduced, including the return to mothballs of four battleship-led battle groups that were went to sea under President Ronald Reagan.
America's Air Force is preparing for war with aging planes, insufficient spare parts and with aircraft mostly manned by National Guard and Reservists.
Not since the outbreak of World war II has America's military been stretched thinner. Why?
Because, as patriots have long warned, American interests are being sacrificed to Sharon's war policy.
Leading Israeli historian Martin van Creveld has predicted that a U.S.-led attack on Iraq or another large-scale terror attack on the United states or Israel would provided the Israelis with the impetus they need to clear the entire occupied territories of the remaining Palestinians. Under the terms of the Genocide convention, this is genocide.
Using its ultra-modern air force, tanks, helicopter gunships, submarines and a force of 12 divisions, the Israeli military could hold Arab nations at bay while it systematically empties Palestinian refugee camps driving the Arabs into neighboring Jordan.
Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon do not have the men or materiel to counter the Israeli military and would be helpless to stop the offensive, said Creveld.
Experts believe that the operation could be completed in just
eight days, said Creveld.
|Top|
Leading senators are trying to pass legislation granting special rights to homosexuals and lesbians.
the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee brought the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, out of the closet in a press conference April 24.
This bill would make it illegal for a business to not hire people because they are homosexual or to treat them differently in the workplace.
Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and James Jeffords (I-Ver.) sponsored the bill.
Major corporations such as AT&T, Coors, Xerox, FleetBoston, Eastman Kodak, Microsoft and others support ENDA, they said.
Opponents say such a law will not fight discrimination as much as it will create a pro-homosexual bias in hiring and extend special rights to people who participate in a chosen behavior.
The Family Research Council (FRC) stated the bill "would force employers, even those in education and child care, to forgo their beliefs about homosexuality in employment decisions.
"ENDA is not only a violation of employers' constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association, it's ultimately a direct attack on marriage," said Connie Mackey, Frc's vice president for government relations. "Redefining marriage is what homosexual activists want. Government recognition of their activity with special protection in the law is one component of their end-game strategy targeting marriage. Senators must uphold marriage and vote against ENDA."
"It extends fair employment practices, not special rights, to lesbians, to gay men, to bisexuals," Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) Told Cybercast News Service. "This is not as dramatic or revolutionary a step as many people have advocated that it is."
This bill was first introduced in the senate in a different form in 1975 during the civil rights movement in an attempt to link homosexuals to what was being done for blacks, women and others. The bill went nowhere.
In 1994 the bill was re-introduced as ENDA.
ENDA was brought to a vote in 1996 but was defeated in the Senate, and seemed to have even less support in the House.
Currently, the Senate bill has 44 cosponsors and the House bill 191.
Twelve states have enacted similar laws prohibiting discriminating against homosexuals.
Religious organization, the military and small businesses are
exempt.
|Top|
We are living in an age of perpetual war. The great revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes described it as a state of "perpetual war for perpetual peace." Now, our national leadership has become more strident than ever before in American history. They have been letting us know that our present war will continue, until terrorism everywhere in the world is eradicated.
Recently, our secretary of defense, Donald Runsfeld, when visiting American and "allied forces in Afghanistan, told them that the present war would go on forever. His words were received with thunderous applause and roaring cheers. Perhaps his young audience was happy that they would enjoy permanent employment. And perhaps they really believe they are fighting against terrorism and for peace. In any event Runsfeld's pep talk had the desired effect. The troops accepted the premise that perpetual war is okay with them. The real question is, who will win this war against an undefined enemy?
The war of which the administration speaks and which the Congress finances with money extracted from the shallow pockets of taxpaying Americans has never been declared. According to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. The last time our elected representatives and senators declared war was in 1941 at the behest of FDR following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which he had incited.
All foreign incursions or peace actions that followed were done at the whim of the president. Congress dutifully rolled over and provided the money.
The White House is pondering all kinds of plans for America's future. And funny thing - all of these plans focus on ultimate peace through perpetual war. Consistent with this "war/peace" strategy is that the armed forces that demolish a country are called "peacemakers." When these forces or others become the army of occupation, the plutocratic controlled media label them "peacekeepers." Anyone who fights back is a "terrorist." These terms don't mean what they appear to mean upon first reading or hearing them. In fact they mean the opposite.
The administration recently informed the people that the United States has plans for the invasion of Iraq but is not ready to do so until the necessary 2 50,000 troops can be available. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a prime future target. Hardly a day goes by without an administration official, often Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, stridently calling for a U..s attack on Iraq to help secure the future of peace-loving Israel.
Obviously, the only way 250,000 troops can be found for this undertaking, considering our world-wide deployment of troops, is through a universal draft - a device not used since 1973. Meanwhile, President Bush prefers to talk about some sort of compulsory "public service" which pundits like "conservative" Bill Buckley have long put at the top of their globalist wish list for America.
Let's not forget the increasing U.S. presence in Colombia, waging the war on drugs, and the new American presence in the Philippines, Where "advisers" are training native troops to fight an increasing anti-government insurrection in that strategic country.
Of course, there is the explosive powder keg in the Middle East where Palestinians are fighting to reclaim their homeland from the Israeli invaders. Note that the Establishment media always refer to the Israelis as defenders of their homeland. The exact opposite is true. The Palestinians are defending their own land which the Israelis ruthlessly seized and destroyed, thanks to financial and materiel aid worth untold billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers.
With each day, the United States becomes more involved. The proper American position is one of strict neutrality. That is the Position of American Free Press.
Sadly those who speak out against unlimited and unprincipled American intervention in this "war on terrorism" come more and more under the scrutiny and criticism of the government, their own unthinking friends, relatives and co-workers. The first Amendment of the Constitution with its guarantee of freedom of speech and press is quickly becoming obsolete.
This is why next month's Barnes Review conference is so important. Freedom of Speech - the First Amendment - will be a big subject. Se pages B-1 to B-4 of this issue for more information.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex) recently called for a non-interventionist U.S. policy not only in the Middle East but also in the rest of the world. He cited our Founding Fathers such as Washington and Jefferson who promoted friendship with other nations, not intractable and dangerous entangling and complicated alliances.
Paul said, "Perhaps an honest examination of the history
of American interventionism in the 20th century, from Korea to
Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding
Fathers foresaw more than we think."
|Top|
The possibility that 19 Muslim men accused of being the Sept. 11 hijackers were not, in fact, the hijackers, is not so extraordinary an idea as it might seem.
After seven months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen that there exists solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller has now admitted quite the opposite.
That 19 Muslim men who have apparently disappeared have been named as the hijackers is not in doubt.
What is in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.
The amazing possibility remains that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who have been assigned guilt in the tragedy.
In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words, "left no paper trial." The FBI director stated flatly:
In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.
In describing Mueller's evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that:
Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.
The Times reporters acknowledge that Mueller's comments "offer the FBI's most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have."
The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used "meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works" to conceal their scheme.
Mueller made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources speciously announced, almost instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda "network" but that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11.
Mueller seems to forget that early government and media reports loudly hyped "discoveries"—letters and other documents—in the luggage and personal belongings of the presumed hijackers which "proved" that they were on a "mission for Allah," etc etc.
Now Mueller's comments seem to contradict everything that's
been said.
|Top|
Both the House and the Senate passed legislation in support of Israel's latest bloody incursions, dubbed "Operations Defensive Shield," into the occupied territories.
When the House of Representatives expressed overwhelming support for Israel's invasion and brutal occupation of Palestinians lands May 2 it was endorsing genocide as defined by the Genocide Convention, which was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Bush the Elder in 1992.
The Genocide convention, Art.II,secs,A,b.c. and D, clearly defines the crime of Genocide. Israel is guilty of this crime, a fact of which congress seems ignorant, making them implicit. (See page nine for how your congressman voted on this issue.)
A similar Senate resolution (S.Amdr. 3389), sponsored by Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and attached to a trade bill, was overwhelmingly approved.
Resolutions passed by both chambers denounced the Palestinians' resistance to the invasion of their lands but supported Israel's bloody attacks - dating back a half-century - on Palestinians. Israel's building of settlements in the occupied territories was tolerated.
Only a few lawmakers had the courage to oppose this endorsement of evil. The Senate vote was 94-2 and the House vote was 352-21.
The House resolution condemned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat by name for "ongoing support of terror." It made no mention of the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is an indicted war criminal.
Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Ernest Hollings (S.C.) Were the only members of the upper chamber courageous enough to buck the Israeli lobby and vote. Helms is recovering from surgery.
"Peace in the Middle East is a two-way street," Byrd said. "Nowhere in this resolution is Israel called upon to fulfill its role in working for peace."
Hollings called the resolution "simplistic, one-side."
House opponents argued that the resolution was one-sided in supporting Israel.
"I think this is a green light for Sharon to do things on a scale of what the Palestinians do - killing civilians," said Rep.Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.) "There are piles of bodies of innocent people on the other side as well. There are bad people on both sides who are willing to kill noncombatants."
"Resolutions like this can very will backfire," said
Rep. Ron Paul (R.Tex.).
|Top|
According to the U.S. Commerce department's Bureau of Industry
and Security, it is illegal for U.S. individuals or companies
to participate in international boycotts of Israeli products.
According to commerce's web site, "During the mid-1970s the
United states adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation
of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes...The
Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic
boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today...The
anti-boycott provsions of the Export Administration regulations
apply to all ‘U.S. persons,' difined to include individuals
and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates."
Penalties for breaking the law can include vines up to $50,000
or five years in jail. See www.bxa.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompliance/OACRequirements.html
for more information.
|Top|
The major media in America have suppressed an allegation by Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) That President George W. Bush and others in high places nay have had advance knowledge of the impending Sept.11 terrorist attacks and permitted them to happen.
McKinney first made public her concerns in a radio interview. And while word of her comments spread like wildfire on the Internet and rocked official Washington, most Americans have never heard about these shocking allegations.
"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on Sept. 11," SHE SAID. "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of Sept. 11?"
McKinney's words hinted that she may well be aware of allegations that Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, may have also been aware of the impending attacks: "Who else knew," she asked, "and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
The outspoken Georgia woman went on to charge that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war.
She pointed out that top former government officials - including the president's father, former President George H.W. Bush - were profiting from the ongoing "war on terrorism" (an outgrowth of the Bush administration response to the Sept. 11 attacks) through their association with the Washington, D.C.-based Carlyle Group, an elite investment firm with widespread investments in the defense industry. (For a rundown on Carlyle, see the story on page-15 of this special report.
McKinney pointed out that "it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense-industry holding, the stocks of which have soared since Sept. 11."
CONSPIRACY THEORY?
The April 12 issue of The Washington Post attempted to paint the controversy in partisan terms, headlining its report, "Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot," and added that McKinney "seems to have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulation during the past six months among people who believe that the government is partially - or entirely - to blame for last year's attacks.
The Post did not mention that many people also believe that there is a possible Israeli connection, either in terms of foreknowledge or actual involvement.
In a formal statement issued by her office, the congresswoman noted that "I am not aware of any evidence that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11," but added pointedly that "a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."
For its own part, the Carlyle Group, the Bush administration and Republican leaders have tried to make light of the allegations and assert that they are partisan in nature.
But the bottom line is that the questions being raised by the
congresswoman are questions that need to be addressed. And they
are not the only unresolved questions about 9-11 that have not
been addressed, either by official investigations or by the major
media, as you will see inside.
|Top|
In the wake of the worst terrorist attack in American history on Sept. 11, 2001, many major questions remain not only unanswered, but there has been little or no effort to find the answers. One must ask why?
President Roosevelt appointed the Roberts Commission 11 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. After the assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, President Johnson appointed the Warren Commission to investigate only 7 days later.
At this writing, it has been none months since the attacks. Although nothing is known for sure about the perpetrators of the 9-11 crime, there has been no appointment of a high-level investigating committee and there has been no newspaper outcry that an investigation must be made. Our first question is: Why?
2. The biggest question of all is who benefitted (cui bono) - the standard measure of establishing guilt for a crime?
3. In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "Intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware - or so they say - of a conspiracy to commit the 9-11 terror attacks?
4. The maximum passenger capacity of a Boeing 767 is 289 and two of them were used. That's a total capacity of 1,328 passengers. Prior to Sept. 11, transcontinental flights were heavily booked. Why were the four planes that crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon only carrying a total of 266 passengers - 20 percent of their capacity?
5. Why did pilots flying the four jetliners not take evasive actions such as decompressing the cabin or rolling the planes over when they discovered that hijackers had taken over the planes and were killing passengers?
6. The morning of the terror attacks, original reports identified five planes as being unaccounted for. Later, federal authorities downgraded the number to four. What happened to the fifth jetliner and the hijackers on it?
7. At least a dozen Air Force and National Guard bases are within a few moments of flight time to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Why weren't fighter planes scrambled as soon as it became obvious that the airliners had been hijacked?
8. The air traffic control system keeps track of all commercial flights and is in continuous radio contact with the pilots. All of these communications are recorded. It would have been immediately apparent to the controllers that something had gone wrong when the planes deviated from their course and radio contact ceased. Why were jet fighters not scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes? Why wer transcripts of the pilots' communications with air traffic controllers not released to the public?
9. American Airlines Flight 77, the jet which U.S. officials say crashed into the Pentagon, was hijacked shortly before 9 a.m. - approximately 15 minutes after the first plane, American Airlines Flight 11, crashed into the World Trade towers. Why were no jet fighters scrambled to intercept the flight?
10. If United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania as the result of a struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers, what of witnesses who reported seeing the second plane following it?
11. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported on Sept. 13, 2001: "Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where United Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash of the jetliner at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." If this plane was not shot down and remained intact until hitting the ground, how could debris travel six miles from the crash site in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing?
12. In its Dec.31/Jan.7 issue, Newsweek magazine reported that on Sept. 11 a military officer in the White House announced that a threat had been received against the president's plane, Air Force One. When a top aide to the vice president's chief of staff asked, "How do we know?" The officer replied that the warning included the aircraft's code name, which is classified. No one admits they know the origins of the threat. Is the public supposed to believe that the alleged hijackers had access to top-level secret information?
13. Moments after the attack on Sept.11, at 10 a.m., a Fox television news anchor made a shocking statement: "There is an explosion at the base of the building...white smoke from the bottom...something has happened at the base of the building...then, another explosion. Another building in the WTC complex has blown up..." Did Now York authorities order the rapid clearing of the WTC site to cover up that what this newsman saw?
14. Could a fire fed by 18,000 gallons of jet fuel - much of which was blown from the building when the planes hit - melt the concrete-clad steel columns supporting each tower?
15. The editors of Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year-old journal of record among America's fire engineers and fire fighters, has blasted New York and federal officials for destroying evidence by immediately removing the wreckage of the towers without an investigation by qualified experts. Why did the government undermine "a scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history"?
16. Some media outlets reported that two of the hijackers had bought tickets for flights scheduled after the Sept. 11 attacks. Why?
17. Why did Ahmed Alghamdi, who was allegedly on the United plane that hit the World Trade Center, also purchase tickets for a flight the next day from Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. to Saudi Arabia?
18. Why was Mohammad Atta booked on a Delta flight from Baltimore to San Francisco?
19. Why would hijackers, cunning enough to avoid creating a paper trail linking them directly to the 9-11 attacks, use credit cards with their correct names, which could be easily traced by law enforcement? And why did they allow their drivers licenses with photos to be Xeroxed, yet no group has ever claimed credit for the attacks?
20. Evidence cited by authorities that the attacks were carried out by "Arab hijackers" included an alleged "collect" telephone call made by Barbara Olsen, the wife of U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olsen, from her seat on American Airlines Flight 77. However, because telephones on American jetliners must be activated by credit card, it would have been impossible for Mrs. Olsen to have made the purported collect call. How does the FBI account for this inconsistency?
21. How did the FBI compile a list of the 190 hijackers, including their photos, only two days after the attack?
22. FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names. Doesn't everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was security?
23. At least six of the hijackers who are alleged to have committed suicide by crashing the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon are still alive. Why has the official list of hijackers not been altered to reflect this?
24. Several Knowledgeable observers of the FBI investigation into the terror attacks have concluded that key evidence implicating Arabs in 9-11, such as Arabic flight training manuals and religious materials found at Boston's Logan airport and a passport of one of the alleged Arab hijackers found in the WTC rubble, appeared "contrived" and "placed." Have these allegations been investigated to see if, in fact, evidence had been planted and by whom?
25. Why did one of the named hijackers leave an incriminating note in his car at the airport? Why did he take his luggage with him on a suicide flight.
26. Don't reports of heavy drinking and cavorting by some of the hijackers in Boston, according to Reuters news service, make the hijackers look more like mercenaries carousing before a mission than pious religious fundamentalists about to meet their maker?
27. While the public is told that the "black boxes" of two of the hijacked planes, which are built to withstand crashes and fire, were never found, an alleged hijacker's passport was miraculously found on top of a piled of rubble, near the WTC. Who put it there?
28. How could documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact at the WTC, while two planes' "black boxes" were damaged beyond use?
29. Why were the Cockpit Voice Recorders in the "black boxes" on the Pentagon jetliner and on the Pennsylvania airliner completely blank?
30. What is the full story behind the five Israelis seen cheering and photographing the collapse of the WTC?
31. Have investigators questioned employees of the Israeli-owned and operated moving companies in the New York and New Jersey areas, which even the influential Jewish newspaper, Forward, conceded were most likely Mossad fronts, to find out what they knew about the attacks?
32. Details of a vast Israeli spy network of so-called "art students" operating throughout the United States - some in close proximity to where purported hijackers were living - have been covered in AFP. Is there a connection between the terror attack and the spy ring?
33. The FBI arrested at least 60 and as many as 120 Israelis following the terrorist attacks because they are suspected of having material knowledge about the attacks. What information?
34. Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft allow a number of Israelis detained following the terror attacks to be released so that could leave the country and return to Israel?
35. Why have no American newspapers, other than AFP published authoritative remarks indicating that only intelligence organizations of major countries could have planned and orchestrated the 9-11 attacks which required precise timing and knowledge of how to bypass security at U.S. airports?
36. Why did federal authorities and New York officials prevent people, including newspaper photographers, from photographing the ruins from certain angles in the weeks after 9-11?
37. Why did New York authorities prevent firemen from retrieving the bodies of their fallen comrades after the buildings collapsed?
38. Have investigators probed whether technology such as that used in Northrop Grumman's "Global Hawk," a robotized military jet with a wingspan the size of a Boeing 737 which flew across the Pacific unmanned in April 2 001, could have been used to facilitate the hijackings of the four jetliners?
39. Why do authorities and the U.S. media continue to ignore close business connections between the Bush family and the bin Laden Group, the billion-dollar multinational corporation owned and operated by the family of Osama bin Laden, despite the fact that newspapers around the world have repeatedly reported this salient fact?
40. What of the stock transactions made by a firm which used to employ a man who now sits in the executive director position at the CIA?
41. Why have U.S. media outlets neglected to report on the vast sums of money that stand to be made by companies closely linked to top-level Bush administration officials as a result of America's war on terror? And what is the billion-dollar Carlyle Group if not a corrupt scheme to enrich insiders from the "war on terror"?
42. Who were the investors in companies such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Merill Lynch & Co. who sold thousands of "put" options in the three days before Sept. 11, betting that the stock of American Airlines and United Airlines would plunge? Have investigators probed these blood money profiteers to find if, in fact, they knew something of the tragedy hours or even days before it happened? And if so, why has this important news not been reported by any newspaper?
43. Was the U.S. military preparing war plans against Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 attacks?
44. Is the Bush administration's "War on Terror" a plausible excuse to permit favored oil companies to take over and exploit an estimated $5 trillion in oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Basin?
45. By late October, U.S. authorities conceded that most of their promising leads for finding accomplices and some of their long-held suspicions about several suspects have unraveled, according to the New York Times. Since more than 1,200 people have been arrested and more than 365,000 tips have been received from the public, why have there been no major breakthroughs in the supposedly largest U.S. criminal investigation in history?
46 . Osama bin Laden has repeatedly denied that he had anything to do with the attacks. The only evidence the United States has released to the public showing a link to the attacks are admissions made by bin Laden in a series of grainy, inaudible video tapes allegedly discovered by the CIA and the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Translators widely disagree on the Arabic translation. Why does the United States continue to pin the blame for 9-11 on Osama bin Laden?
47. There is documented history of secret plans by top government and Army officials to wage a war of terror on American citizens for the purpose of manipulating public opinion. Could this be happening today?
48. Why have elected and appointed leaders in Washington assailed and ridiculed a member of Congress for simply questioning why a full inquiry has not been done of the worst case of terrorism on U.S. soil in history?
49. In early August 2001, President Bush was warned by intelligence sources to expect a terror attack on America by Osama bin Laden. Why were America's defense forces caught by surprise on Sept. 11?
50. Although the Mossad almost certainly knew the exact date and place of the attacks, why wasn't President Bush given this vital information?
For answers to many of these questions, see inside...
Copies of this special 20 page edition on Sept. 11 are available
from American Free Press. 202-544-5977 or www.americanfreepress.net
|Top|
Some of the men the FBI claims hijacked planes on Sept. 11 and crashed them into hubs of U.S. finance and defense are still alive.
At least six men the FBI says were part of the ring of 19 hijackers who seized passenger jets with box cutters on Sept. 11 and crashed them into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon are "alive and well," report Mideast officials.
Information Times, an on-line publication, reported that Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting eith President George W. Bush on Sept. 20: "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened."
According to The Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian embassy confirmed that four of the five mentioned by Al-Faisal - Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdul azizz Alo mari and Salem Alhazmi - are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.
Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.
NUMBER SIX
A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi National Waleed Alshehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline.
According to the unnamed official, Alshehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline.
On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.
Nobody in authority has dared to ask why the U.S. military failed to respond on the morning of Sept. 11.
Serious questions have been raised about the response of this nation's leaders to the first attack on the Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, all from the public record.
Why did the military fail to scramble planes over Washington when the second explosion at the World Trade Center made it obvious that a terrorist attack was under way?
Why are there so many conflicting "official explanations" of the failure?
At 9:06 a.m. on that fateful day, New York police broadcast that "this was a terrorist attack - notify the Pentagon," the New York Daily News reported."
American Forces Press Service quoted a Navy officer inside the Pentagon:
"We were watching the World Trade Center on television. When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, ‘the World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'"
Nearly an hour after the New York attack, terrorists crashed their plane into the Pentagon as military planes that were supposed to protect D.C. at Andrews Air Force Base - 10 miles from the nation's capital - sat idle.
Despite the warning from New York, Newsday quoted Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, a Pentagon spokesman: "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and i doubt prior to Tuesday's event anyone would have expected anything like that here."
How could the Pentagon be "not aware?" The London Sunday Telegraph reported on Sept. 14: "Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington, D.C.
Many in the mainstream media reported that Andrews has no fighter planes or role in protecting Washington but The San Diego Union-Tribune got it right on Sept. 12: "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes...But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon."
NBC Nightly News reported on Sept.11: "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the D.C. National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover - a protective cover over Washington.
While the mainstream media mostly ignored the fact that Andrews
Air Force Base is supposed to protect Washington, USA Today
gave conflicting reports on Sept. 17: "Andrews Air Force
Base, home to Air Force One...had no fighters assigned to it."
and in a later edition: "The District of Columbia National
Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force base... but
those planes were not on alert and not deployed.
|Top|
A respected professional magazine read by fire fighters and engineers is calling the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Towers a farce and a sham.
Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America's fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a "a half-baked farce.
Fire Engineering frequently publishes technical studies of major fires and is read in more that 50,00 fire departments and schools of fire engineering across the nation.
Fire Engineering's Editor, William Manning, issued a "call to action" to America's firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures.
Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying, "Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."
No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires "attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses," Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred "in an alarmingly short time."
Manning visited the site shortly after the collapse and his photographs appeared in the October issue of Fire Engineering. None of the photos show the load-bearing central steel support columns standing or fallen, which raises the question, what caused these columns to disintegrate?
The steel from the site must be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse, Manning said. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."
"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China," Manning said, "perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car."
"Such destruction of evidence," Manning wrote, "shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.
Nowhere in the national standard for fire investigation does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall, Manning said. "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully-resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.
"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World trade Center."
In a separate editorial, "WTC Investigation? A Call to Action," by the magazine's technical editor, Prof. Glenn Corbett of John Jay University in New York City, and two other expert fire engineers who specialize in high-rise buildings, The FEMA-led investigation was called "uncoordinated" and "superficial."
"The World Trade Center disaster demands the most comprehensive, detailed investigation possible," the writers said. "No event in our entire fire service history has ever come close to the magnitude of this incident."
Given the magnitude of the disaster "you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in the world history," the editorial says. "You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive ‘Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission.' No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence."
A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is reported to be studying "some aspects of the collapse," but not all, according to Manning and others. The engineers' investigation, they say, has not looked into all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence.
"Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members - described by one close source as a "tourist trip" - no one's checking the evidence for anything," Manning said. "As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper and computer generated hypotheticals."
Engineers have also complained that they have been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them form examining the disaster site, interviewing witnesses and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to police and fire departments.
"This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," one engineer who asked not to be identified told the Times. Members of the team of engineers have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.
"FEMA is controlling everything," the anonymous engineer complained.
"Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety," Manning said. "They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?"
"No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe
that the ‘official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run
by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce
that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose
primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure,"
he wrote.
|Top|
There are glaring holes in the so-called "official evidence" implicating 19 Arab individuals in the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on New York and Washington.
The final desperate words of a flight attendant on one of the airliners which crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 captured in a telephone conversation with an air-traffic controller contradict official evidence that has been released on the men suspected of hijacking that jetliner, reports the British press.
On Sept. 21, the BCC reported that the transcript of a phone call made by Madeline Amy Sweeney aboard American Airlines Flight 11 to Boston air traffic control reveals that the flight attendant identified the hijackers and their seat numbers.
However, according to the BBC, the seat numbers were not the seats of the men who the FBI says were responsible for the hijacking.
In addition, the BBC reports that Sweeney identified only four hijackers, whereas FBI officials have released the names of five men they suspect were involved in the terror attack.
The FBI names the suspected terrorists as Waleed M. Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami.
At least three of the men - Waleed M. Alshehri, Wail Alshehri and Abdulaziz Alomari - accused of flying the suicide mission are still alive, according to Mideast and western media. The father of Mohamed Atta, who is believed to have been the ringleader, claims that his son was kidnaped and is still alive.
This report - combined with the findings that at least six, possibly even seven, of the purported terrorists are still alive and had nothing to do with the attacks - could cast doubt on the supposedly open-and-shut case that members of a particular radical Islamic group carried out the heinous terrorist assaults on Sept.11.
The report also raises the question as to whether, as pointed
out by Seymour Hersh in a recent issue of The New Yorker, false
evidence was planted.
|Top|