.
October 2, 2006
October 9, 2006
October 16, 2006
October 23, 2006
October 30
.
On Sept. 20, American Free Press correspondent Michael Collins Piper met face to face in Manhattan with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a roundtable discussion and later in a private meeting. The Iranian president personally invited Piper to come to Iran as his guest in order to be able to visit the real Iran, not the mythical Iran that is constantly being harangued by the controlled media in the United States.
Copies of American Free Press and of Piper's books were made available by Piper to the Iranian president and his official delegation.
Respected Iranian filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh was instrumental in helping AFP secure the meeting between Ahmadinejad and Piper. Best known for producing the movie, The Messiah, the Sunni Muslim equivalent to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, Talebzadeh was a featured speaker discussing the Middle East at the Labor Day weekend conference in Washington sponsored by American Free Press.
After meeting with Ahmadinejad, Piper remarked on the Iranian leader's remarkable personality. "Although Dr. Ahmadinejad is only four years older than I am," said Piper, "I felt I was in the presence of someone of deep wisdom and spirituality, far beyond his years."
"It was an interesting experience to be able to see the Iranian president speak freely, without having his thoughts and words being deliberately distorted or misinterpreted by so-called `analysts' from Zionist smear bunds such as the Anti-Defamation League or by lying propagandists from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News," said Piper, noting that when CBS celebrity Mike Wallace interviewed Ahmadinejad for Sixty Minutes, Wallace constantly interrupted the Iranian president in an argumentative manner, never allowing Ahmadinejad the opportunity to engage in candid discourse.
The visit followed on the heels of Ahmadinejad's powerful speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept 19 in which the Iranian leader assailed the United States and Britain for violating international human rights. He said the "major powers" were abusing the UN Security Council as a tool of "threat and coercion," which is "of grave concern" to all nations.
Ahmadinejad went on to say: "The prevalence of military domination, increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor countries, violence as a means to solve crises, spread of terrorism specially state terrorism, existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the pervasive lack of honesty in interstate relations, and disregard for the equal rights of peoples and nations in international relations constitute some of the challenges and threats."
He then turned on the United Nations, asking, "if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the UN organs can take them to account?"
Over the past year, Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have both been able to seize the media spotlight with their fiery populism and their fierce opposition to the Bush administration in order to refocus discussion on such pivotal issues as oil, war and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. This is threatening the very foundation of the plutocracy, and explains why the internationalists have been going through such contortions to paint these maverick leaders as another Hitler or a communist.
Ahmadinejad, especially, has been able to garner respect from the international community, despite his outspoken views on some of the most contentious issues in the world today - namely the Holocaust and nuclear energy.
Next week Piper will provide his first-hand account of Ahmadinejad's remarks to the private round-table forum that followed the Iranian leader's speech to the UN General Assembly.
AFP correspondent James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press
|Top|
Producer Aaron Russo's popular new film, America: Freedom to
Fascism, which focuses on the country's apparent slide into 
tyranny, currently is slated to show
in seven more cities starting Sept. 21 and running into October.
From Freedom to Fascism explores such hot-button issues as whether Americans may be asked to carry a national ID card in the coming years, whether there's a ratified law legitimizing the federal income tax and whether Americans may some day have radio-frequency ID chips embedded under their skin, among other compelling topics.
A statement posed at FreedomToFascism.com describes Russo's mission in putting together this film:
Determined to find the law that requires Americans to pay income tax, Aaron Russo sets out on a journey. Neither left- nor right wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America. Through interviews with U.S. congressmen, a former IRS commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card...and the implementation of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. A striking case about the evolving police state in America.
As recently reported by this AFP correspondent, this Cinema Libre Studio film was launched July 28 in the Kansas city area by radio talk show host Peter McCandless of KCXI 1140 AM. He and others got the film rolling in several cities that month.
The film, which Todd David Schwartz of CBS called "the scariest damn film you'll see this year." opens Sept. 29 in Denver at Regency Theatres Tamarac Square, 7777 E. Hampden Avenue (call 303-368-9200).
Also, on Sept. 29 the film will be shown in Portland, Ore., at the Clinton Street Theater, 2522 SE Clinton St. (Call 503-238-8899), or go to www.clintonsttheater.com.
The film also will be shown Oct.6 in four cities, including Tempe, Ariz, at Harkins Valley Art, 505 South Mill avenue (call 408-466-7272).
Other Oct. 6 showings will be in Tucson, Ariz, at the Loft Cinema, 3233 E. Speedway Blvd., ( 502-795-7777); in Beverly Hills, Dalif., at Laemmie's Music Hall 3, 9036 Wilshire Blvd. (310-274-6869); and in Salt Lake city, Utah, at the Tower Theatre, 800 E 900 South (801-321-0310).
A visit to the web site FreedomToFascism.com contains information on getting involved - including how to make arrangements to bring the film to your town. A 14-minute trailer can also be viewed at the web site.
Brooklyn-born Russo who in the 1960s promoted rock acts such as the Who, Janis Joplin, the Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane, and who introduced Bette Midler to motion picture audiences in The Rose, endeavors in this documentary to prove there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor, as noted in a biographical sketch of Russo's colorful career.
"The film is very provocative and is receiving standing ovation at its previews," notes a statement on the film's web site.
Russo commented, "there are no boundaries one must adhere to when preserving one's liberty."
Watch AFP for updates on this and many other domestic issues
from across the nation. AFP correspondent Mark Anderson can be
contacted at www.truthorelse.com.
|Top|
Earlier this year, American Free Press began a series of reports from AFP correspondent Michael collins Piper detailing the fascinating and important speeches delivered June 22 during the public forum in Malaysia sponsored by the Perdana Global Peace Organization. What follows is Piper's final report on the international peace gathering.
Speaking from the perspective
of a physician, Dr. Hellen Caldicott candidly expressed her view
that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - one of the cheerleaders
for war - is "clearly a sociopath. He lies constantly and
does it in a quite charming way." In fact, she says, there
is a distinct "ideology and psychology" among those
promoting war against Iran.
Dr. Caldicott says that "a radical change must take place in the psyches of the world leaders and their public," or otherwise "our present path will lead us to annihilation possibly within 20 years but maybe within 10 year."
There is no time to waste, she says. "Wise leaders must arise who will lead us from the brink of nuclear suicide and who will instigate the dynamics necessary to stop the blind and unconscious rush to mutually assured destruction."There are 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world today and America and the Russians have 97% of them.
Right now, Dr. Caldicott notes, there is what must be called a "nuclear war" being conducted by the United states against Iraq. She has seen firsthand the results of the use of the exposure to uranium 238 used by the United States in conventional weapons that have been deployed in the two wars against Iraq. The uranium is highly carcinogenic. It is spread through dust storms. It gets deposited in human bone. In Basra, Iraq there has been a 700% increase in cancer among children. There has likewise been a 700% increase in congenital anomalies in Iraqi newborns: children born without brains, with no arms, with single eyes or no eyes at all.
"America is contaminating the cradle of civilization for ever more. This is a war crime beyond compare. This is genocide," said Dr. Caldicott. "This is a nuclear war."
Even now there still remain unexploded American "Cluster bombs" lying across the sands of Iraq and afghanistan. So further tragedies are to come.
However, when Dr. Caldicott has tried to bring this message to the mass media, she has found that the media chooses to suppress these facts. "We're unable to publish this." she was told by The New York Times. To their credit, dr. Caldicott pointed out, British and Australian newspapers have published the information that her Nuclear Policy Research Institute has brought forth, but American newspapers will not.
And now, she said there are those neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who have been talking about using nuclear weapons in Iran against the Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan. If just three bombs each were lobbed at those installation, nuclear fallout would spread into Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, and radioactivity would spread downwind, due to global air currents, as far into southeast Asia as Malaysia. All told, one million people could die or be injured from the initial blasts. Some 2.6 million people would soon be dead from radiation. Another 10.5 million would be exposed to radiation and to the subsequent dangers facing both the victims and their unborn children. There are simply not enough medical facilities to handle the consequences.
The intended attack on Iran, said Dr. Caldicott, is an "incredible international crime" which could result in further international upheavals. For example, she asked, is it possible that the Russians could get nervous and become further engaged in a conflict with their Chechen rebels? Could other nuclear blasts be in the offing? The end results would be nuclear winter and "the end of life on Earth, the end of creation." This, she said, is "the most serious crisis the Earth has ever faced," and since "the American people are determining the fate of the Earth, America's leaders need tough love," and need to be brought under control.
"The United States is the world's bully," she said. "And we are all enablers to America's bullying. Bullies must be disciplined.
Helen Caldicott, a native of australia who has spent much time
in the United States.
|Top|
the Senate is poised to approve House-passed legislation to provide 700 miles more fencing on the Mexican border and send the bill to President Bush, who would find it politically difficult to make this h is first veto.
"It's time to secure the border with Mexico," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) Said Sept. 18 before filing parliamentary motions to force the bill onto the Senate floor.
"Border security is the essential first step of any effort to enact immigration reform," Frist said. "Only when we have convinced the American people of our commitment to securing our borders will we be able to reach a consensus on comprehensive immigration reform."
The last time the Senate considered a borders - only bill it failed with all but two Democrats and 20 Republicans refusing to even debate it. Since then, several Republicans told The Washington Times that they would now consider legislation dealing only with stopping the flow of illegal aliens into the country.
Frist filed a cloture motion to end debate and force a vote on borders-only, but the process normally takes several days to complete.
House Republicans, frustrated with Senate inaction on a strong border bill passed by the House in December, are trying to fix the border bit-by-bit.
The first bit was approved Sept. 15 when the House passed the bill, now debated in the senate, providing for a 700-mile double fence along strategic parts of the border with Mexico. It mirrors a measure contained in the major, borders-only legislation sent to the Senate. Senators responded to that, however, by supporting amnesty.
Several congressmen, who had opposed the fence provision before, took a look at the current political climate and reversed their position, though some lied and said politics were not a factor. However, obviously, they had read that Randy Graf, a strong-border advocate and champion of the Minutemen, solidly defeated Steve Huffman, an amnesty advocate favored by the GOP establishment, for the Republican House nomination in Arizona. Breaking the tradition of neutrality in primaries, the Republican National Committee gave Graf's opponent $129,222 in advertising funds.
More than 20 Democrats have also switched their votes and now support the fence. When asked why he had switched, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) Asked, "How did you find me?" He was in an out-of the way hallway in the Capitol.
"The people who spoke up were almost unanimously opposed
to illegal immigration," explained rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.),
another switcher. But he said the upcoming election was no factor
in his switch. We believe you, Jim.
|Top|
As noted in the Oct. 2 edition of American Free Press, AFP correspondent Michael Collins Piper was in New York City on Sept. 20 where he participated in a closed-door roundtable conference with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a small group of invited journalists and academics. Later Piper was privately introduced to Ahmadinejad who invited Piper to come to Iran as his personal guest. What follows is Piper's special report on the comments by Ahmadinejad.
Even as The New York Sun - a fanatically pro-Israel daily - was editorially demanding his arrest "as a material witness or even as a suspect" in terrorism, outspoken Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was arriving in New York for a whirlwind visit last week. Speaking to the United Nations and visiting privately with different groups, journalists and scholars were anxious to hear what the ex-university professor-turned-Mayor of Tehran-turned Iranian president had to say.
This comes at a time when the Islamic republic of Iran is at the center of the global spotlight, the focus of provocative, warlike rhetoric by Israel and its ally, George W. Bush.
Even Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at the Manhattan headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), meeting place of the American foreign policy elite, created a stir. Led by Holocaust industry figure Elie Wiesel, Jewish members of the CFR threatened mass resignation if the Iranian leader was permitted to speak, although the revolt never materialized.
Wieselwhose own credibility is questionabletold anyone who would listen that he believed Ahmadinejad should be declared persona non grata in the United States and that Iran itself should be expelled from the UN while Ahmadinejad is president.
In the end, the proposed formal dinner with Ahmadinejad at the CFR was nixed since Jewish members of the CFR said that they could not abide the thought of sitting down to dinner with the Iranian leader. Instead, Ahmadinejad met with a small number of CFR members in a less formal gathering.
As pro-Israel groups organized boisterous mass anti-Ahmadinejad demonstrations outside the United Nations and the hotel where Ahmadinejad was headquartered, there were some sane folks who did agree to speak with the Iranian president and listen to what he had to say, without interruption. This contrasted with the treatment often accorded Ahmadinejad by biased American media personalities and by the American president who refuses to speak to the Iranian leader.
Speaking at the gathering of the bellicose rhetoric of Bush and his Israeli allies, Ahmadinejad insisted U.S. policy makers are "too smart" to think seriously about war with Iran. In fact, he said, the threats and tough talk by the United States are being used by the White House to apply what he called "psychological pressure" on the European countries to support sanctions against Iraq.
Ahmadinejad predicted any military moves against Iran "will not favor the United States government or the American people." He pointed out that, even now, "All of the people of our region are beginning to hate the United States because of the policies of the Bush administration."
And it should be noted, that fully 118 countries recently aligned themselves with Iran's drive to secure nuclear energy for peaceful purposesand against the Israel-U.S. axisat the recent summit of nonaligned nations in Cuba.
The Iranian president expressed dismay that his recent extended letter to President Bush asking for an opening of dialogue, followed by an offer to publicly debate the American leader before the United Nations, has gone unanswered.
"I hoped President Bush would respond to my letter to him. My letter was a human act, not a political act. I meet and dialogue with many people on a daily basis."
He noted: "There is no better way than holding dialogue. It can be across the spectrum. Any condition for dialogue is helpful to remove tensions. We've announced on numerous occasions that we are open for dialogue, but under conditions of mutual respect. Relations can be friendly, balanced and fair."
Expressing his personal interest and his nation's interest in, at the very least, opening up exchanges of scientists and academics between the United States and Iran, Ahmadinejad said: "We've been urging the institution of a direct flight between Tehran and New York for a long time. We will provide facilities for such exchanges."
The Iranian president added: "We were very sorry when the United States refused our offer of humanitarian support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina."
Reflecting upon the possibility that the Bush administration and Israel not only seek to stop Iran from expanding its current nuclear programwhich has been the publicly expressed reason for the campaign being waged against Iranbut also have the intention of toppling the Ahmadinejad government and forcing a complete change in the Iranian system of government, the Iranian leader remarked:
Of course, we oppose this type of thinking by the U.S. administration. But they will never be able to impose regime change on Iran. Iran doesn't need a guardian. This thinking is part of the past.
Why does Mr. Bush believe that he can think better than the
Iranian people and choose their leadership? Imagine meas the president
of Iransaying to the American people: "I want to save the
American people." Think of how the Iranian people respond
to President Bush's rhetoric of that type. What is it that Mr.
Bush wants to hand to Iran?
Iran has always been Iran, but we have now become independent
of the West. Iran is stronger than ever. Iran is a nation of families,
friends and neighbors who live like one family, and there will
be reactions from the people of Iran to any interference in our
nation's affairs.
As far as Iran's alleged desire to assemble nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad noted that Iran's nuclear program is being supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency. "It's round the clock, with cameras," he pointed out. In addition, he noted, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Ahmadinejad didn't mention it, but the truth is that Israel, which has one of the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenals, has never signed that treaty, nor does it even officially admit that it has nuclear capabilities.
In addition, although it is not widely reported by the American media - which portrays Iran feverishly working to build "the Islamic bomb" - the fact is, as noted by Ahmadinejad, Iran's supreme Muslim religious leader actually issued an edict, known as a "fatwa," prohibiting Iran's building of a nuclear weapon.
"In light of that," said Ahmadinejad, "it can be said that, religiously speaking, we are against nuclear weapons. We are fundamentally against nuclear weapons. They are for killing."
What's more, he pointed out: "The Iranian people don't need a nuclear weapon. For eight years, during the Iran-Iraq war, we had a voluntary armyincluding Christiansthat rallied to the defense of the nation. Iranians have a love affair with their country."
Yet, Ahmadinejad asked this: "How can those nations that have nuclear arsenals object to those nations that are trying to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes? The nuclear arena should not be monopolized by a select group of countries."
Responding to allegations that his country suppresses the media, Ahmadinejad noted, with a smile, that:
If you look at the volume of criticism of the Iranian government and my administration in the media and in academia in Iran, it is substantial. In fact, one of our own government newspapers was recently shut down because it insulted a tribe within our country and that was in violation of the law.
So our own government newspaper was punished for violating the law. Iranian journalists accompanying me to the United States were denied visas by the United States government. These journalists are not allowed to travel beyond the confines of the United Nations building.
But after I was elected president of Iran, some 200 journalists from all over the world visited a small village where I lived for a very brief period as a small child and interviewed everybody they could find: the baker, the man who tended the fruit stand, all of the neighbors.
As far as political freedom in Iran is concerned, Ahmadinejad noted that in the presidential race in which he was elected, "there were eight different candidates from very different backgrounds, representing very diverse platforms."
He pointed out that "Our 290-member consultative assembly is wide-open to a variety of ideas and opinions. It is not run along party lines as you find in the United States, for example." He added:
"Anyone can come to Iran and see that young people, old people - all people - are very politicized and have wide-ranging opinions. They are cognizant of what is happening in the news about the world today and are very much interested in what's happening. Americans are not fingerprinted when they come to Iran, but people from other lands are fingerprinted when they come to America."
Of the efforts by the Christian and Muslim peoples of Palestine to win a homeland, Ahmadinejad reiterated his longtime concerns that reflect the thinking of millions of people around the globe:
"The fate of humanity is connected to what happens in Palestine. The time for occupation in Palestine has long ended. For a thousand years or more, Palestine was Palestine and nothing else. However, for the last 60 years we have seen nothing but hostility and bloodshed and tragedy there. Small babies being killed. Homes destroyed. For what? What is the root cause? The Palestinian people should be able to return to their homeland and choose their own leadership there."
Addressing hysterical charges that he is a "Holocaust denier," as has been repeatedly mentioned in American media reports about him, Ahmadinejad said:
I have been criticized in the media for asking for scientific evidence relating to events that were said to have happened during World War II. During that war, some 60 million people died. Yet one small group has gained prominence as victims as if other lives don't matter.
In our society today, God and democracy can be freely researched and questioned. There are many books and papers and commentaries published on these topics, but the question of events in World War II cannot be discussed.
I believe, in the spirit of understanding, that we need to do further research in this realm, for the more we understand what really happened, the more we can do to alleviate problems in our society.
In the end, after all, if these things happened, they happened in Europe. They did not happen in Palestine. So therefore, why did the Palestinians have to pay the price? There are five million displaced Palestinians in the world today.
Reflecting in general on the world situation, the Iranian president concluded:
"In our world today there are small groups that seek power and wealth. But most societies seek freedom, peace and justice. We have said we are against the imposition of a unilateral position upon the world. The United Nations must be independent of any single power."
It is not for nothing that Ahmadinejad personally impresses even hostile journalists who meet him. He is witty, whip-smart, deeply spiritual and intellectual and as even Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, admitted in The Washington Post: "I was struck by how little he conformed to the picture of a madman . . . always calm and intelligent."
Ahmadinejad has established himself as a firm voice against the forces that demand submission to a New World Order.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial "underground bestseller" documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War and The New Jerusalem. all available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS.He has lectured on these topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Moscow and Abu Dhabi.
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|
Chicago, Illinois - Aaron Russo's documentary movie, America: Freedom to Fascism, is a testament to his unwavering determination to inform the American people about who really runs the economic and political structure in this country. On Sept. 26, AFP caught up with Russo for an exclusive interview to discuss the vast array of social ills and evils that the power elites have foisted on us over many decades.
Neither of Chicago's major daily newspapers gave Russo any attention, despite his distinguished background in the Chicago music scene and his subsequent success in making popular movies such as Trading Places and The Rose.
"My conscience made me make the movie,' Russo said. "I
have political knowledge, and no one else was doing it. I feel
this is my duty as an American....It
had to be done; the media won't tell the truth."
Russo said there is 15 years of research behind the movie and it took two years to put together. "I want to do a series of movies to wake up the people," he said. "This is volume 1."
He plans to soon make the movie available on DVD and viewable on the Internet for a modest fee that would help finance more movies.
Russo provided AFP with a private screening of the film, which clocks in at one hour, 47 minutes. In that time frame, Russo gets down to some disturbing fundamentals on what ails America. Weaving several big topics into a cohesive presentation, Russo, who narrates his own film, closely examines the Federal Reserve System, the legitimacy of the income tax, plans for a National ID for all Americans, details on tracking chips that can be placed under human skin and other compelling issues.
The film starts with the dark year of 1913, when the Money Trust, as it was sometimes called, took hold. To this day, it has Americans by the jugular.
That year, the secretive planning of foreign banker Paul Warburg, American banker J.P. Morgan and others to create an all-powerful, privately owned and controlled central bank with control of issuing and valuing money and manipulation interest rates was codified into law with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. As Russo narrates, this is quietly done in late December of that year when many legislators were already home for the holidays.
The income tax comes next in the film. Also created in 1913 via the 16th Amendment, the tax was established to enable the federal government to collect vast sums of money to service the loans the central bankers would make to the government. This explains the growth of government over the years due to constant borrowing which, of course, requires more and more taxes to offset the borrowing, combined with constant spending hikes to create and expand government departments and employ more government workers. The cycle never ends.
Russo notes that then-president Woodrow Wilson regretted the success of the banking oligarchy in putting this vast borrowing and collection engine into place.
He also addresses the legitimacy of the income tax, which is included in the Communist Manifesto but was conceptually declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1894. As recently as 2003, Russo says, U.S. District Judge James C. Fox declared that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. Of course, this runs contrary to a statement made by the secretary of state at the time the amendment was voted on by Congress that it was ratified by the states.
Russo does an admirable job of establishing that there is no law on the books to provide the legal basis for an unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people. He interviewed several former IRS agents, some of whom way they do not file 1040s anymore, to back that up. He also shows that the Internal Revenue Code does not define income.
"Government gets its power from us, not the other way around," Russo told AFP.
He then posed the question: Have so many American soldiers died in wars just so U.S. citizens can be "micro-chipped like a dog?"
He adds: "Stop being good Republicans. Stop being good Democrats. Start being good Americans." the system itself must be used to legally abolish the Fed.
The film is said to be resonating among people from many walks of life - liberals and conservatives, rich and poor, blacks and whites.
However, raising awareness about the documentary is not easy. Russo said he received a last-minute cancellation for a planned satellite-feed interview from the CNBC "Power Lunch" show with Bill Griffith when the show's New York producers saw an advance copy. Too hot to handle, they concluded.
Russo said that interested persons can go to the web site,
www.FreedomToFascism.com
and track the latest showings, including dates times and addresses,
and inquire about bringing the film to a city or town near you.
|Top|
McAllen Still Courting Asian Industry," said the Sept. 18 headline in The Monitor, a south Texas newspaper based in McAllen, revealing that officials at the city level in the United States are making deals with foreign entities.
City officials are working with representatives of Chinese manufacturers to create a China trade Mart, which would serve as a southern Texas venue where China's manufacturers could display finished products, gauge retailers interest and drum up distribution connections.
But there's also talk of China eventually setting up manufacturing plants in the United States - "no doubt about it, and since they are going to come, why not here?" stated University of Texas-Pan American business professor Michael Minor in an interview with The Monitor. "It's a fairly audacious step for McAllen," Minor also said, speaking of the burgeoning China-Texas courtship.
Local economic development officials are saying that once Chinese companies find their niche in Texas, they will decide to stay put and set up manufacturing operations.
All of this follows recent reports by American Free Press that Chinese businesses, which by and large are linked to China's communist central government, will send even more manufactured goods into the United States and further undercut what remains of American-based-and-owned industry. These products are expected to arrive via a proposed system of highway and rail corridors what will pump Chinese products from seaports in Mexico into the United states in accordance with the general basis of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which former Secretary of American Free Trade Agreement, which former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once described as not just a trade deal but the basis for "a new international system."
A major trade hub for U.S. Customs inspections and other operations for this massive corridor system would be Kansas City, Mo. - which is far from any seaport or national border. Security concerns are now being raised about such large amounts of mostly un-inspected freight pouring into the United States during this 5-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Chinese have been in effective control of the strategically critical Panama Canal since the late 1990s. Considering its hostile anti-U.S. military doctrines, china is indeed invading America, thought some will argue on both sides as to whether this is a perilous situation.
An important angle often overlooked is that when city or state officials make deals with foreign officials, or in China's case companies usually linked with the Chinese government, they may be breaking the U.S. Constitution, which forbids any of the states in America from entering into agreements with foreign nations.
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress....keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power," the Constitution notes in Article I, Sect. 10. It also notes in that section, "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation....."
McAllen officials say that they are taking an economic initiative that will do sone good. Some are saying it's a way to "win back jobs lost to China." A delegation of 19 Chinese government officials is slated to visit the McAllen area for four days in November to view the potential trade mart site. Those officials notable, are being sent by China's central government.
Perhaps local officials, itching to beef up economic activity and v\revenue, have adopted the "any port will do in a storm" viewpoint. Still, the key question is why Congress does not keep strict tabs on such developments and invoke the Constitution accordingly.
Mark Anderson can be contacted at truthorelse@msn.com
|Top|
On Sept 21, Michael Chertoff, the secretary of the department of Homeland security (DHS), announced that a consortium headed by the Chicago-based Boeing company had won a multi-billion contract to install sensors and radar along the U.S. border. The deal, the first part of a multibillion-dollar government plan designed to reduce illegal entry along the Canadian and Mexican borders calls for cameras, sensors and even unmanned planes.
When Chertoff was asked why DHS had chosen the Boeing-led group he declined to comment. The reason for Chertoff's silence, however, is telling: the Boeing team includes an Israeli military subcontractor which will play a key role in "securing" the U.S. border.
Of interest is the fact that Chertoff's Israeli mother played a key role in creating that country in its infancy.
The Boeing team, which will implement the DHS program called the Secure border Initiative (SBI) along the northern and southern borders of the United States, includes a Merrimack, N.H.-based surveillance technology firm called Kollsman Inc, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems Ltd. Of Haifa, Israel.
The Israeli-American team includes "Unisys Corp., DRS Technologies Inc., L-e Communications Holdings Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc., Perot Systems corp. and the Israeli-owned Kollsman, which makes the thermo-imaging cameras used to monitor Israel's borders.
As chertoff announced the awarding of the contract, estimated to be worth some $2.5 billion, he was giving a very lucrative and sensitive contract to an Israeli company with close ties to the Israeli military. The contract reportedly does not have a set value. Payments will be announced as parts for the system are ordered.
The work will be done in phases, with the first piece being a 28-mile stretch near Tucson, Ariz., Chertoff said. This first phase will cost $67 million, he said.
Boeing's proposal includes some 1,800 towers along the borders with cameras developed by Israels Elbit Systems Ltd. Which can reportedly spot people up to 9 miles away.
Elbit Systems says it is "the prime contractor and systems integrator for the Israel Police Border Control System, a computerized system for registration and control deployed at every Israeli border crossing.
"Elbit Systems has developed and integrated multi-layered solutions incorporating cutting-edge biometrics, optical ID and RFID [radio frequency identification] technologies. Our perimeter security solutions have also been adapted for energy infrastructures and offshore installations," the company's web site says.
"We are looking at a technology that is advanced and can pick a face in the crowd." Wayne Esser, capture team leader of the Boeing team, told Washington Technology.
Elbit provides Israel's military with a border security surveillance system with integrated sensors, radars, a "smart fence" and cameras.
TIES TO ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE
Kollsman is not the only player on the Boeing team with ties to Israeli military intelligence. As AFP has reported previously, Unisys Corp, chaired by Lawrence A. Weinback, has integrated Israeli security software into the computer products it sells to the U.S. government and other clients. Software from check Point Software Technologies of Mamat Gan, Israel, for example, is integrated into Unisys products.
Elbit Systems is directed by a high-level board that is comprised of former Israeli major generals, colonels, ambassadors, and former chiefs of Israel's largest banks and companies. The company's only non-Israeli director on its board of 18 members is Timothy Taylor, the British-born president and CEO of Elbit Systems of America. Taylor speaks to the U.S. media for the Israeli-owned company while the former Israeli fighter pilots and generals run the company form Haifa.
SBI is a Chertoff initiative that is meant to be "a comprehensive plan to control our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration. "What we are looking to do is build a virtual fence," Chertoff said. "We want to know when anybody or anything is crossing the border."
While the Israeli press was quick to report that an Israeli company was part of the SBI border security program, chertoff failed to mention it. "Elbit System's subsidiary Kollsman announced it would supply technology to identify threats, deter and prevent crossings, and apprehend intruders along U.S. borders," Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported.
Hunleigh U.S.A., another Israeli-owned security company, provided
passenger screening at Boston's Logan Airport on the morning of
Sept. 11, 2001. Huntleigh, which is wholly owned by the Israeli
company International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS)
apparently failed to intercept the Arab terrorists who hijacked
the two planes that hit the World trade Center, according to the
government version. Now, the same administration that failed to
stop the terror attacks of 9-11 is hiring an Israeli-owned company
to help protect the entire U.S. land border.
|Top|
|
Neo-conservatives have shown they will tell any lie necessary to get Bush to OK attack on Iran. A number of experts have concluded that, despite the Bush administration's desire to attack Iran, the aggression would be too rash and the consequences to dire even for the irrational Bush administration. Military experts point out that at a time when generals are calling for more troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be ill-advised for bush to add Iran to the war theater. Experts note that Iran is well armed with missiles capable of attacking U.S. ships and oil facilities throughout the Middle East and that Iran can direct its Shiite allies in Iraq to assault U.S. troops there and set in motion terrorist actions throughout the Middle East. Diplomatic experts point out that the United States is isolated in its desire for war with Iran and has no ally except Israel, thus validating Muslim claims that the United States is Israel's instrument against Muslims in the Middle East. Experts note that military aggression is a war crime and that U.S. violations of international law isolate the United States and destroy the soft power on which U.S. leadership has been based. An attack on Iran could be the last straw for Muslims chafing under the rule of U.S. puppet governments in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Economic experts point out that the impact on the price of oil would be severe and the economic consequences detrimental. With the U.S. housing bubble deflating, now is not the time for an oil shock. |
Thorns in U.S. Imperialists' Sides: Left: egomaniacal Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has had the rules of war rewritten to permit the United States to attack a non-nuclear power with "tactical" nuclear weapons. Who are the evil ones? |
It is difficult to take exception to this expert analysis. Nevertheless, the Bush administration continues to send war signals. Credible news organizations have reported that U.S. naval attack groups have been given "prepare to deploy orders" that would put them on station off Iran by Oct.21.
How can Bush administration war plans be reconciled with expert opinion that the consequences would be too dire for the United States?
Perhaps the answer is that what appears as irrationality to experts is rationality to neo-conservatives. Neo-cons seek maxijmum chaos and instability in the Middle east in order to justify long-term U.S. occupation of the region. Following this line of thought, neo-cons would regard the loss of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf as a way to solidify public support for the war. U.S. public anger at the Iranians could even result in U.S. public support for a military draft in order to win "the war on terror."
The Bush administration could bring Congress around by announcing a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident or by orchestration a "terrorist attack." However, this is unnecessary as Bush has prepared the ground for bypassing Congress with his propagandistic allegations that Iran, by arming Iraqi insurgents, sponsoring terrorism, and building nuclear weapons, is the major part of the ongoing "war against terrorism." Now that Iran is blamed for rising violence in Iraq, an attack on Iran follows as a matter of course. All Bush has to do is to continue with his lies in order to bring the American public to a new war hysteria.
Bush's attorney general has demonstrated that he has no qualms about validation any and all extra-legal powers that the White House requires for violation the Constitution and international law. The congressional attempts to block illegal wiretapping and torture have failed. The senate has refused to authorized torture, but the Senate has not prevented the administration from torturing detainees. The compromise leaves it to the White House to decide whether its interrogation practices are objectionable.
Polls show that Bush administration propaganda has convinced a majority in inattentive Americans that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Polls show that a majority support an attack on Iran under this circumstance. The neo-conservatives and their media allies have succeeded in causing the public to confuse Iran's legal nuclear energy program with a weapons program.
The International Atomic energy Agency, whose inspectors pour over Iran's nuclear energy program for signs of a weapons program, recently denounced a House Intelligence Committee report as "outrageous and dishonest." Written by the Republican neo-con staff, the Republican report falsely alleges that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons grade last April and that the IAEA had removed a senior safeguards inspector to keep the alleged breach of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Pact secret.
Once again neo-conservatives have shown that they will tell any and every lie to achieve their goal of attacking Iran Jingoistic anti-UN Bush supporters will automatically believe the neo-con lie and will swallow neo-con talk radio claims that the UN Bush supporters will automatically believe the neo-con lie and will swallow neo-con talk radio claims that the UN is protecting Iran's nuclear weapons program. As we learned from the Iraq hysteria, facts and experts are no impediment to the Bush administration lies.
Rumsfeld's neo-con Pentagon has rewritten U.S. war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear countries. As the United states paid a huge public relations cost in terms of world opinion and distrust of the United States by endorsing the first use of nuclear weapons, the revision of U.S. war doctrine must have a purpose.
Neo-cons claim that tactical nuclear weapons are necessary to destroy Iran's underground facilities. However, the real reason for using nukes against Iran is to intimidate Iran from retaliating to threaten the entire Muslim world with genocide unless Muslims bend to the neo-cons' will and accept U.S. hegemony over their part of the world.
In his speech to the United Nations, Hugo Chevez might not have been too deep into hyperbole when he described Bush as an example of demonic evil.
Paul craig Roberts, Ph.D. a former editor at The Wall Street
Journal, has associated with the Hoover Institution, and the Institute
for Political Economy and from 1981 to 1982 served as assistant
secretary of the treasury for economic policy.
|Top|
The length of United States participation in the war in Iraq has now surpassed the duration of U.S. participation in the second World War and victory is not in sight. Yet almost daily the president and his minions in the GOP assure the American people that the so-called global war on terror (of which Iraq is only the beginning) will be won hands down. And what is more, a model democracy will surely blossom in the ancient cradle of civilization.
Our entry into this war was based on the outright lie by President George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to U.S. national security. In fact in an address before Congress, bush enunciated that it was necessary for the United states to immediately embark on a crusade to eliminate the "Axis of Evil," Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
A military strike against Iraq, no matter how illegal, would enjoy the after-the-fact support of Congress because that body will support any action that is on Israel's wish list. The conquest of Iraq would make it easier for Israel to move forward with its long-range plans for control of Iraqi oil and hegemony over the entire Mideast.
The overriding problem facing the United States is the simple fact. Of which AFP readers are well aware, that we have needlessly become embroiled in a no-win guerrilla war.
We noted in the June 16, 2003, issue that despite the fact that Bush declared on May 1, 2003, issue that despite the fact that Bush declared on May 1, 2003, that the war was over, hostilities would continue. And today as we write these lines, the "insurgency forces" (read guerrillas) are giving the U.S. and its Lame Coalition of the Willing" a very difficult time.
In that issue we said: "The truth is that the war in Iraq is not over. Americans are getting killed every day, often by snipers and sometimes by ambush, and this situation is likely to continue.
"The Iraqi situation shows every indication of developing into a guerrilla war. The Iraqis be they Shiite, Sunni, Kurd or whatever, do not like a foreign occupation force any more than you would. They, as you would, will eventually cleanse their land of this alien force."
In AFP April 19, 2004 we reported that the war in Iraq was going as we predicted. "History Shows that Guerrilla War in Iraq Is Un-winnable."
In AFP's April 3, 2006, edition we wrote "As Predicted, Guerrilla War Tactics Prevail in Iraq." We noted that U.S. Army Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command said that American forces are facing "a classical guerrilla-type campaign" in Iraq.
History shows us that guerrilla fighters always win. The invaders are always the losers. During our own Revolutionary War, rag-tag American armies, often using tactics borrowed from the Indians and officered by "insurgents" like Francis Marion, the famed Swamp Fox, prevailed over the well trained, well financed and well equipped forces of King George III.
The Cypriot Creek war hero Gen. George Grivas noted in his book On Guerrilla warfare and EOKA's Struggle that the Algerians, in their seven-year fight for independence from France, defeated "a well organized French army, numbering 450,000 men, and prevented them from winning a decisive victory."
There are other reminders of guerrilla war victories: Mao in China, Castro and Chi Guevara in Cuba, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, where the French backed out and the U.S. moved in to fight an expensive no-win war that took 14 years to lose. Our predictions unfortunately continue to be right on target.
The bottom line here is that all Americans in general and AFP readers and supporters in particular must energize themselves to tell their local and national politicians of all political parties to demand the impeachment of bush and Cheney.
Support AFP's Committee to Impeach Bush and Cheney with your generous moral and financial support. Write to your senators and congressman and to newspapers to bring this war to a halt and get your friends and neighbors to do the same.
A former high-level congressional staff member who spent
many years as an editor for a variety of independent media journals,
Vince Ryan is now the permanent chairman of the members-only American
Free Press Readership Council (AFPRC), which gives AFP input on
major issues affecting the newspaper. For information on AFPRC,
contact AFPRC, Secretary Lois Hodges at 202-544-5977.
|Top|
If Israel's invasion of Lebanon proved anything, it was that Israel's military might is no match for modern guerrilla warfare. When the cease-fire was declared, the Israeli army's much vaunted invincibility was shattered and the Lebanese militia group Hezbollah was stronger, Israel was also weakened in the eyes of the Arab world where, for decades, it has been backed b y U.S. military might and was capable of crushing any Arab foe.
For the time being, Israel has a nuclear advantage over all other nations in the Middle East, but Hezbollah proved that Israel's conventional forces are not all they are cracked up to be.
Hezbollah has already held massive victory tallies and announced that it still retains over 20,000 rockets while the Israeli cabinet and the military angrily argue about who was responsible for the failed invasion of Lebanon.
In what is seen as a war crime, Israel carpet-bombed Lebanon with cluster weapons and phosphorous bombs. It leveled villages, and most of the capital Beirut. But on the ground its mechanized infantry divisions and special forces took a beating from a well-organized guerrilla force. That force, much like the Vietcong in Vietnam, has been dug in for years, waiting for the moment to take on an organized military offensive.
Following the American military's lead, Israel thought it could bomb Lebanon into submission. However, Israeli generals underestimated the fact that modern armies are no match for well-organized insurgent forces, a lesson the United States is leaning in Iraq and Afghanistan.
During the height of the bombing in Lebanon, when Lebanese civilians were worst hit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that the world was seeing the " birth pangs of a new Middle East" and that the Lebanese population would turn against Hezbollah. Like the Israeli government, she and other senior members of the Bush White House, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair knew a sustained Israeli bombing would destroy the infrastructure of Lebanon, indiscriminately kill men, women and children and would force hundreds of thousands of innocent people from their homes. But they naively believed that Lebanese Christians and Muslims would not blame Israel - or the United States and Britain for giving a green light to the bombing - but would turn against Hezbollah.
That absurd thesis drove the Israelis to bomb civilian areas and to leave an estimated 1.2 million cluster bomb droplets throughout Lebanon.
Miss Rice, Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Blair all got it wrong, however, because Israel's reaction to the capture of two of its soldiers was extreme, and the world know it. From the first day of bombing, it was clear Israel had exploited the capture to initiate a long-standing Plan to invade Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah. It is now known that plans for such an invasion had been in the works for some time and had the approval of the White House.
Unlike Europeans, who regarded Hezbollah as part of the political process in Lebanon, neo-conservatives in the White House and Pentagon had taken the Israeli line that Hezbollah was a terrorist organization and that it needed to be destroyed to teach its backers, Syria and Iran, a lesson. It was just another plank in the neo-con strategy of creating regime change across the Middle East.
Israel unleashed its most sophisticated media blitz in decades, offering interviews to the international news media and providing interpreters. It also made available video footage of its bombing runs and daily footage of the damage caused by Hezbollah rockets. But none of that could erase the international media coverage of the war crimes carried out by the Israeli military in its zeal to bomb Lebanon back to the Stone Age and the strength and fortitude of Lebanese militia fighters.
On Sept. 22, Hezbollah leader Sheik Nasrallah, who the Israelis have vowed to murder, emerged from the shadows to lead a victory parade in the bombed out suburbs of south Beirut. He told 200,000 pro-Lebanon demonstrators that Hezbollah would not give up its arsenal until Lebanon had an army capable of defending the country. He also said guerrilla fighters would not be disarmed by UN forces. He added that the two captured Israeli soldiers whom Israel cited as its reason for gong to war, would only be released as a part of a prisoner swap with Israel.
Nasrallah carefully timed his victory rally to coincide with Israel's final pullout from Lebanon and thereby signaled yet another humiliation for Israel's military.
In the final analysis, Israel suffered an ignominious defeat
and weakened not only its standing in the Middle East but also
that of the United States, which applauded the Israeli bombing
of Lebanon and supplied the cluster and phosphorous bombs the
Israeli air force and artillery units used on Lebanese civilian
areas.
|Top|
As more U.S. Soldiers die in Iraq, and President Bush tells Americans he will "stay the course" even if his only supporters are his wife and their do. Barney, reports have come out that Bush is getting advice from a man who knows all about failure. The man Is Henry Kissinger, 88, who served as national security advisor and secretary of state under Richard Nixon and then Gerald Ford.
According to Washington Post editor, Bob Woodward whose new book State of Denial is giving the White House a political headache, Kissinger has been advising Bush behind the scenes for some time during his regular visits to the White House.
The presence of Kissinger within the Bush White House should be no surprise to those who have studied his political career, including his influence on the neo-conservative movement and his membership in the shadowy group known as Bilderberg. His role as advisor to this president may help explain some of the president's view about the war in Iraq and also some of his language. One of Kissinger's favorite sayings is, "the absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously." In other words, never seek alternatives, or as he told come of the most notorious regimes during his stint as a national security advisor, "succeed and get the job done quickly." According to Woodward, Kissinger thinks he is fighting the war in Vietnam all over again, except that this time he intends to win it. Likewise, bush has made it clear that he will seek victory in Iraq - whatever that may mean - no matter how many American soldiers lose their lives.
Kissinger has emerged from the background this year to make a series of statements furthering the neo-conservative agenda about rebuilding the Middle East and creating a new world order. He has been especially active in articulation views that dovetail with Israel's perceptions of how America should develop its Middle East strategy. Born a German, of Jewish origin, Kissinger has made no secret of his support for Zionism and his close links to Israel. On Sept. 3, he publicly declared that European nations should put aside their differences with the United States because both sides were facing a possible "war of civilizations" that "dwarfed transatlantic mistrust left over from the war in Iraq." Mankind was facing a "global catastrophe," he warned, and that meant America and its allies had to start constructing a "new world order."
If Kissinger's past teaches anything about his "new world order" it is that he will get into bed with dictators and the cost of his policies in human lives lost will not mean to much to his sensibilities. A brief examination of his days as national security advisor and secretary of state under Nixon and Ford, confirm his tastes for dirty, clandestine wars, as well as an ability to hide the truth from Congress and the American people.
In 1969, he advocated the secret "carpet" bombing of neutral Cambodia that led to the killing of half a million innocent lives and is believed to have contributed to the subsequent rise of the dictator, Pol Pot whose Khmer Rouge militias massacred millions in what become known as "the killing fields." In 1973, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace for negotiating a cease-fire with North Vietnam, even though the war in Vietnam continued for another two years.
If Cambodia was an example of his ability to operate in the shadows so was his support for the invasion of East Timor by the corrupt Indonesian regime of General Suharto. Documents have now surfaced showing that a day before the invasion on December 7, 1975, Kissinger told the dictator: "It is important whatever you do, do succeed quickly." Kissinger was concerned American public opinion would not favor a brutal or prolonged occupation of East Timor that nine days earlier had declared independence from Portugal. The invasion led to the death of almost a quarter of a million Timorese and a subsequent occupation killed almost a third of the population in what Amnesty International called genocide.
Richard walker is the nom de plume of a former mainstream news producer who now writes for AFP so he can expose the kinds of subjects that he was forbidden to cover in the controlled press.
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|
A recent article in a mainstream newspaper discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, or children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th Amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.
In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70% to 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It's the same story in California, Arizona and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.
This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.
No other wealthy, Western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connections and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.
Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on Earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.
Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter thi country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.
Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.
I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could no have been imagined.
Our Founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that's precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It's time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th Amendment.
Call Congressman Ron Paul's office toll free at 1-888-322-1414
or visit his website at www.ronpaul.org.
|Top|
"At least none states have recently enacted rules that severely restrict third party voter registration activities and many other states have prepared similar rules or legislation," reports Robert M. Brandon & Associates. The public-interest firm made it report available in Washington.
"Typical provisions require organizations and individual volunteers to comply with onerous requirements for collecting and submitting completed registration applications with severe criminal and civil penalties for failing to do so," the report said.
Registration workers must undergo burdensome training, register with the state and provide specific personal information and indicate where they plan to register voters, it said. They are subject to strict rules on handling completed application forms, including prohibitions against photocopying and requiring that registration applications be sealed and delivered to election officials immediately, thereby interfering with the quality control of voter registration organizations.
These requirements "have completely shut down" voter registration activities in some states while severely restricting activities in others, it said. Restrictions in Ohio and Florida were found in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.
"Restrictions on third-party voter registration efforts are supposedly intended to secure the voter registration process, but as judges noted in the Ohio and Florida cases, they effectively prevent hundreds of thousands of citizens from participating in the electoral process," the report said.
Many independent journalists and those concerned with fair
and honest elections have naturally come to the conclusion that
many of these laws have been enacted to discourage competition
for the ruling parties.
|Top|
Lou Barletta, mayor of Hazelton, Pa., drew a line in the sand and started an earthquake. Fed up with what he sees as the negative effects illegal immigration has had on his town, Barletta successfully promoted new measures that combat the growing problems associated with unchecked population growth, much of which is the result of people sneaking across the border and hiding out in communities around the United States.
In an exclusive interview with American Free Press on Oct. 11, Barletta, 50, discussed his three-ordinance package, which was passed 4-1 this year by the City Council. The first initiative, called the City of Hazelton Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance, penalizes landlords and businesses of all types who rent to, and hire, illegal aliens.
The second, called the Landlord-Tenant Registration Ordinance, mandates that all renters, regardless of their nationality or ethnic background, register with the city so landlords have a way of monitoring the identity and legal status of would-be renters.
And the third, known as the English as the Official Language Ordinance, requires English to be Hazelton's official language.
Under the new measure, the city will be able to suspend the business licenses of employers who hire illegals. As a strong disincentive for businesses to hire illegals, the applicable ordinance gives employees the right to sue their employer for up to three times the wages lost while business operations are suspended.
"Why should we penalize legal American workers?" said Barletta.
The landlord-tenant ordinance requires all would-be renters to obtain a permit at city hall. If a background check cannot verify or confirm that the would-be renter is a U.S. citizen or legal alien, then that person would be prohibited from renting in Hazelton.
As noted in the third measure, English will be upheld as the official language of Hazelton so natural-born or naturalized citizens are not hit with wasteful spending in the form of printing city information in any language except English.
"We're really just trying to protect the English language," Barletta told AFP. People can speak their native tongue wherever and whenever they want, he said. But official city contracts and other documents will be printed in English only.
Barletta, a Hazelton native who's in his second term, has started a trend that is spreading fast, giving opponents the jitters. He is confident that the ordinances constitute a fair and enforceable way to weed out illegal aliens who are swarming from the border states into the U.S. interior.
Hazelton, population 31,000, is in northeastern Pennsylvania. Since the 2000 census, when the population was 23,000, there has indeed been significant growth.
Barletta said that the Latino population accounts for most of it, whether they are illegals or legals. Hazelton was the first city in the nation to pass an ordinance like this. However, since then, there are a significant number of cities that have passed or are close to passing this very same ordinance, Barletta said.
"We've counted over 40 cities," he told AFP, while stressing that Hazelton strictly deals with tenants, landlords and businesses regarding illegal aliens. City law enforcement limits itself to arresting and detaining illegals and assumes the federal government will do its constitutionally mandated job of securing the nation's borders by enforcing immigration laws and handling the necessary deportations and other actions.
Barletta spells out his stance in a statement posted at the web site, smalltowndefenders.com. It says, in part:|
Some come to this country and refuse to learn English, creating a language barrier for city employees. Others enter the country illegally and use government services by not paying taxes or by committing crime on our streets, further draining resources here in Hazelton. Recent crimessuch as a high-profile murder, the discharge of a gun at a crowded city playground [in Hazelton], and drug bustshave involved illegal immigrants. Some of those allegedly involved in those crimes were detained by other law enforcement officials over the years, but were somehow allowed to remain in this country. They eventually migrated into Hazelton, where they helped create a sense of fear in the good, hardworking residents who are here legally.
With a growing problem and a limited city budget, Barletta said he could not sit back any longer and allow such problems to continue.
Since Barletta announced his initiatives, he has been under assault from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Latino special interest groups.
Despite this, he said cities in California, Missouri, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgiacertainly not just border stateshave requested copies of these ordinances and are looking at initiating similar measures. The U.S. government needs to secure the "airports, seaports and north and south borders" for the sake of national security, he said.
"I think this shows the seriousness of the problem," said Barletta. "We're 2,000 miles away from the southern border."
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|
Around 15 states have passed or are strongly considering codifying "the castle doctrine" into law. Based on English common law, this doctrine establishes that intruders breaking into homes, businesses or automobiles would be barred from filing lawsuits against property owners who act in self defense to protect themselves, their property and their loved ones.
Many states are also crafting such a law to also protect property owners from lawsuits filed by intruders' relatives.
Florida started the trend to legally protect homes and business owners from frivolous lawsuits by intruders and assailants, based on the presumption that anyone, who is pursuing forcible or unwelcome entry, likely has harmful intentions.
"The law assumes that if someone is attempting to break into your house or steal your car, then they also have the intent to cause bodily harm," said Michigan State Rep. Neal Nitz in an Aug. 20 legislative news circular.
Other states that have passed variations of this self-defense law include Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona and Georgia. This idea, which has been discussed in the halls of legislatures for yearswith the National Rifle Association lobbying in favor of ithas been gaining steam since the spring of this year. Arizona's version was signed into law by Gov. Janet Napolitano on April 25. Wyoming's took effect in August.
"The House passed this bill at the end of April and the Senate followed suit and passed it in early June," said Rep. Nitz of Michigan.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat who's not necessarily a fan of measures that have NRA support, signed the bill into law in July.
Texas and Wyoming are on the verge of passing similar legislation.
The Oct. 13 Dallas Morning News noted that State Sen. Jeff Wentworth is sponsoring this kind of legislation with co-sponsorship from State Sen. Jane Nelson.
Pennsylvania, where a recent deadly shooting spree at an Amish one-room school devastated a small community, also is strongly considering joining this trend.
So far, there is not much talk among legislators on how to truly protect schoolchildren. Many schools have adopted the modest measure of locking external doors during the school day, which is not foolproof. Some districts, such as the South Bend, Ind., Community School Corp., have armed city police officers at all, or nearly all, school buildings, at least most of the time.
In years past, when several tragic school shootings in Columbine, Colo., and elsewhere made headlines, there was talk of allowing certain school officials to take training and have an accessible firearm locked away on school property in case they're needed.
However, school officials in a suburban Fort Worth, Tex., school district have sought the advice of trained defense experts to school kids in when to fight back against individuals who come into a school armed and looking to kill students. According to the Associated Press, Response Options has been brought in to teach kids and teachers to make as much noise as possible and to throw anything at gunmen, including desks, chairs, shoes and backpacks.
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve force and an instructor for Response Options, told AP. People should "react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as you can and bring he gunman down."
In Switzerland, the castle doctrine is an integral part of that nation's culture; the lack of restrictions on owning and bearing arms, the citizen-based military and the nation's strict neutrality regarding foreign policy have kept the peace for centuries with an unmistakably low crime rate.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
An outspoken critic of the power and influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States, who happens to be Jewish himself, has become the victim of censorship at the hands of those special interest groups he has been citing for their inordinate influence on U.S. foreign policy making.
Two major Jewish groups have gagged a Jewish historian who is critical of the Israeli lobby. The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee believe in a "free marketplace" for only their ideas.
Tony Judt - who directs New York University's Remarque Institute, which promotes the study of Europe - was schedualed to speak Oct. 4 to a nonprofit group that rents space from the Polish consulate in New York. His subject was the Israeli lobby in the United states, which he says has often stifled honest debate about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Arab and Muslim worlds.
An hour before Judt was to arrive, Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk cancelled his appearance. He said the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded that Judt was too controversial.
"The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure," Kasprzyk said. "That's obvious - we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that."
Judt, who was born and reared in England and lost much of his family during the period of war and occupation that ravaged Europe before and during World War II, denounced the cancellation of his speech. He also said he was forced to cancel another speech scheduled later this month at Manhattan College in the Bronx after a different Jewish group complained.
The Pattern, Judt said, is unmistakable and chilling.
"This is serious and frightening, and only in America - not Israel - is this a problem," Judt said. "These are Jewish organizations that believe they should keep people who disagree with them on the Middle East away from anyone who might listen.
Zionist groups began targeting Judt - a well-regarded historian - after he wrote an essay, which was otherwise highly praised among academic and religious circles, in which he suggested that the establishment of the state of Israel was essentially a mistake, a geopolitical disaster that proved devastating not only to the Christian and Muslim peoples of Palestine but one which has been damaging to the Jewish people themselves.
Judt further inflamed the Zionist lobby groups by defending an academic paper - co-authored by Professor Stephen Walt and Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of government and Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago - which argues that the Israeli lobby has pushed policies that are not in the best interests of the United States or Israel itself. Although attacked by the ADL, and other Zionist groups, that paper has actually drawn praise from some circles in Israel.
The ironic fact is that the work of Judt (and that of Walt and Mearsheimer) is hardly new and, if anything, reflects the longstanding efforts of the writers and editors of American Free Press whose work challenging the intrigues of the Israeli lobby goes back as far as to the late 1950s.
Through their association with Liberty Lobby, the now defunct populist institution on Capitol Hill in Washington AFP's current writers and editors worked with a number of prominent Jewish critics of Zionism seeking an outlet for their point of view that was unavailable through the major media in the United states. Some of those big names included:
* Benjamin Freedman (now deceased), the wealthy American benefactor
who was the driving force behind a number of important publishing
ventures that challenged Zionist influence in America.
* Haviv Schieber (now deceased), the Polish-born former Mayor
of Beersheva, Israel, who later defected to the United states
and emerged as an outspoken critic of Israel.
* Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, who, as far back as 1948, wrote a
famous article for Reader's Digest declaring, "Israel's
flag Is Not Mine."
* Famed Civil libertarian attorney Mark Lane, best known for his
best-selling works on the JFK assassination, such as Rush to
Judgment and Plausible Denial.
* Former Jewish National Fund Executive Director Charles M. Fischbein,
one of the highest ranking officials in the Zionist organizational
community in America, who went public with inside tales of corruption
and intrigue in the Israeli lobby.
The Barnes review Revisionist historical magazine published by Willis A. Carto sells The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Norman Finkelstein, himself a Jew and the offspring of holocaust survivors. Finkelstein was named in the ADL's "top ten most dangerous men" list which the ADL publishes yearly.
So now Tony Judt joins the ever-growing cast of individuals
of all races and creeds who - like American Free Press
and its editors - have dated to challenge the Israeli lobby and
suffered abuse as a consequence. But Judt - like AFP - is not
backing down.
|Top|
During a speech in Washington last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the coming retirement of the baby boom generation will place tremendous strains on the nation's budget and economy. He stresses that Social security and Medicare must be reformed sooner rather than later, because demographic trends make the current system unsustainable over time. In future decades there will be too many retirees and not enough younger taxpayers.
Still, the problem seems vague and faraway for most. Today's seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government wi9ll somehow fix things before they retire.
Not surprisingly, Congress doesn't want to face the problem until it becomes an acute crisis. It's hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant problem. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.
The only honest solution to the future insolvency of Social Security is for congress to stop spending so much money. When Congress outspends federal revenues, it raids social security funds to cover the difference. Unless Congress makes real cuts in spending - and stops spending Social Security taxes on completely unrelated programs - millions of Americans simply will not receive even a fraction of the money they paid into Social Security. Ignore the rhetoric about tax increases and cuts in benefits, as though you are to blame for the problem. All social security obligations could be met if Congress did not spend so much on other things.
Congress can begin addressing the problem immediately by cutting at least 5% from other areas of the federal budget every year for the next five years. The budget has nearly tripled just since 1990; surely Congress can find 5% worth of fat to cut each year.
When members of Congress vote for bigger and bigger appropriations bills each year, they threaten the very solvency of Social security. That's why I vote against every wasteful appropriations bill.
Social Security contributions are supposed to be set aside from general revenues and placed in a trust fund. The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Over the decades congress found itself simply unable to sit on a big pile of money, so it began treating Social Security contributions as general revenues to fund the ever-growing federal government. Today your Social Security account is nothing more than a ledger filled with IOUs.
I introduced legislation to end this terrible practice. Under my bill, H.R. 219, your Social Security account would be treated as your account and not a slush fund for Congress.
This is the simplest approach to Social Security reform, and it has the added benefit of making it harder for congress and the administration to mask the deficit spending that is the real cause of our problems.
Ron Paul, a medical doctor, is a Republican member of the
U.S. Congress. Call him toll free at 1-888-322-1414 or visit:
www.ronpaul.org.
|Top|
The ongoing controversy over alleged nuclear weapons development
by Iran is "a crisis made in Israel." This charge is
made in a new book by Scott Ritter, who - for seven years - was
one of the top United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq.
A tough-talking Marine, who was a ballistic missile advisor to General Norman Schwarzkopf in the first golf War, Ritter says that the same pattern of lies and disinformation used by the Bush administration and its allies in Israel to get the United states engaged in the war against Iraq is now being used to drag the United States into a war against Iran.
Ritter's book, Target Iran, subtitled "The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change," issues a warning Americans need to heed, because everything Ritter said earlier about the drive for war against Iraq was proved correct.
The most important thing to know about Scott Ritter, the man, is that he was right. He told us again and again in 2002 and early 2003 as President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair prepared for war in Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction."
Ritter is able to speak out so profoundly because he is virtually inoculated from the charge of being "anti-Israel" or "anti-Semitic." As Ritter notes in his book, in his service in the military and in the weapons inspection field, he placed his life on the line in defense of Israel. Ritter writes:
"The conflict currently under way between the United States and Iran is, first and foremost, a conflict born in Israel. It is based upon an Israeli contention that Iran poses a threat to Israel, and defined by Israeli assertions that Iran possesses a nuclear weapons program. None of this has been shown to be true, and indeed much of the allegations made by Israel against Iran have been clearly demonstrated as being false. And yet the United states continues to trumpet the Israeli claims, and no individual more loudly so than the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
"If Iran were to attack Israel without provocation, I would argue long and hard for America to come to the aid of its friend and ally But I cannot tolerate the idea of America being pushed into a war of aggression against Iran when Iran threatens neither Israel nor America. And this is what is happening today. Israel has, through a combination of ignorance, fear and paranoia, elevated Iran to a threat status that it finds unacceptable.
"Israel has engaged in policies that have further inflamed this situation. Israel displays an arrogance and rigidity when it comes to developing any diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.
"And Israel demands that the United States take the lead in holding Iran to account. Israel threatens military action against Iran, knowing only too well that in doing so Israel would be committing America to war as well. "When it comes to Iran, Israel con no longer be said to be behaving in a friend of America. And it is high time we in America had the courage to recognize this and take appropriate actions."
Ritter notes the United States and Israel are "two completely distinct nations, and should never be treated as one and indivisible." He says the United states must rein in powerful Israeli lobby organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Americans also need to recognize that "national loyalty is a one way street, and in America for Americans, that on-way sign points only toward the United States of America.
Those who are interested in an in-depth examination of the
realities - not the propaganda - about Iraq and in nuclear program
(and the way the truth has been twisted by Israel and its allies
in the bush administration) should read Ritter's book. It is available
for $25.95 at most bookstores of by going on the Internet to nationbooks.org
or by writing Nation Books, 245 West 17th Street, 11th Floor,
New York, NY 10011
|Top|
While attention is focused on millions of illegal aliens from Mexico who have slipped into the United States, a less-known fact is that hundreds of thousands of Chinese illegals have also invaded America, most of them undocumented.
It is estimated that at this time there are at least 12 million illegal aliens in America and of that number a startling 550,000 are Chinese nationals, the second-largest group to be in America in violation of U.S. immigration law.
Many Chinese immigrants, like their Mexican counterparts, are in America to seek a better life, by passing the legal process to enter the country. Others, however, are known to be here to spy for China or for other criminal purposes, including activity in street gangs in cities across the country.
Xiao-huang Yin, professor of American Studies at Occidental College, and other U.S. and Chinese-American scholars, recently brought this Chinese invasion of the U.S. to light in the media.
Ted L. Gunderson, a retired senior special agent and counter terrorism expert who was once in charge of the FBI's second-largest office, located in Los Angeles, where Chinese street gangs have taken over some of the city's streets, posed this question in a recent interview:
"Is the Chinese military promoting this migration of Chinese, many of whom are young males of military age, to the United States?
"In other word," Gunderson further speculated, "are we seeing the development of a Chinese Fifth Column,' similar to those used so effectively by the Axis forces in nations they invaded during World War II, as the vanguard for a future war with America?"
This might sound "off the wall," Gunderson said, "but there is plenty of reason to speculate about it."
The Hong Kong-based firm of Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd., which has close ties to the Chnese military, has developed a massive port facility at Freeport, Bahamas, the largest port in the world for container ships and located just 60 miles from Florida.
Recently, the Bush administration elected, without following a bidding process to engage Hutchison-Whampoa to scan at Freeport the hundreds of thousands of containers aboard countless ships that make their way to U.S. East Coast ports every year. This decision was made by the White House even though it is known that Chinese illegal aliens have on numerous occasions used these containers to smuggle themselves into the United States.
"The Chinese are going to be in charge of the security for those containers," Gunderson added, "many of which are even shipped on ships belonging to Cosco, the Chinese-government-owned shipping company. Are we insane?"
At the same time, Hutchinson-Whampoa has control of the Panama Canal, including the ports at each end of the strategic waterway.
Therefore, it is not surprising that many illegal aliens from China are making their way to the United States via Panama, with Panamanian immigration officials not checking their travel documents but just waving them through customs checkpoints. According to the Miami Herald, Panamanian customs officials, who have tried to halt the flow of the illegal aliens, have been fired from their jobs.
One news report reveals that Panamanian officials concerned about the smuggling of Chinese illegals told the Herald that between 100 and 150 Mainland Chinese who fail to meet the requirements for visas bribe their way into Panama every month through Panama City's Tocumen Airport. They then make their way to the United States.
This reporter has also been told that Mexico allows Chinese illegal aliens to enter that country via its ports and along its coasts. They then, with the assistance of Mexican narcotics smugglers and corrupt police, travel through Mexican territory and cross into the United States.
Insight magazine has reported that this activity has the full support of the Mexican government, which even provides boats to transfer them ashore from larger ships.
Could this be what the Mexican government wanted with two former U.S. Navy amphibious landing ships, which would cost the U.S. $1 billion each to replace? The bush administration gave them to Mexico. (See related story "Bush White House Gives Extra Punch To Mexican Navy").
Chinese street gangs are rampant in various American cities, particularly on the West coast. However, they have also spread across the country to Chicago and New York. In New York alone, there are now 261,500 Chinese living there, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.
As previously reported in American Free Press, Chinese
government arms merchants have twice attempted to smuggle military
weapons into the United States. In 1996 some 1,000 AK-47 fully
automatic assault rifles went through the Port of Oakland, Calif,
for "street gangs." Fortunately, they were intercepted
by the FBI. Two Chinese agents are currently awaiting trial in
U.S. District court in Los Angeles for attempting to smuggle 200
Chinese QW-2 surface-to-air missiles into the United States.
|Top|
The Pentagon has quietly transferred two large U.S. Navy amphibious transport ships to the Mexican navy, which could be used to smuggle drugs and immigrants into the United States, prompting some military analysts to wonder what is going through the mind of American leaders.
"I cannot understand why the Mexican navy is in need of two large ships capable of together transporting nearly 2,000 well-armed combat troops," a retired U.S. naval officer told American Free Press.
The Bush administration claims that , since Mexico does not have many sheltered ports along its coast, the ships will be of benefit to the country in reacting to natural disasters and for coastal patrol.
One analyst wondered if the White House might be planning to stage some large roundups of illegal aliens and to use the ships to transport them back to Mexico.
On the other hand, the Mexican government "could use the ships to move along the U.S. West Coast and the coast f the Gulf of Mexico to slip more illegals into the United States," he warned.
Reports from U.S. law enforcement that Mexican soldiers have
been seen helping drug and immigrant traffickers should be taken
into account when the U.S. government decides to sell military
vehicles and weapons to Mexico.
|Top|
Venexuelan
President Hugo Chaves (above right) and his Iranian counterpart,
Mahmoud Almadinejad, wave upon their arrival to the Fuete Tiuna
military academy in Caracas, Sept. 17, 2006. Ahmadinejad was
in Venezuala for two days of talks and to sign agreements on
energy. the two leaders share a strong distrust of America's
misguided president and his war loving neo-con advisors, who
have threatened the two leaders and their nations non-stop since
Bush came to power.