October 1, 2007
October 8, 2007
October 15, 2007
October 22, 2007
October 29, 2007
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, admits in his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, that the war in Iraq is about oil.
This admission, though ignored in lengthy book reviews by the mainstream media, is a boost for the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).
The political establishment, both Democrat and Republican, want to get Paul out of the presidential race as quickly as possible. They are fearful that Paul's America-first stance is resonating with voters and they want the messenger politically killed. They are able to keep Paul out of some of the debates to keep his voice from being heard.
When other candidates are forced to confront Paul and the media feels compelled to report, Paul is dismissed as an "isolationist" because he opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would bring the troops home immediately.
He would bring all troops home from the far-flung corners of the Earth. Few of the self-proclaimed opponents of the Iraq war would end it immediately.
Paul is the only candidate with the courage to point out that the hatred of America that fueled the 9-11 terrorist attacks was a result of "bombing them for 10 years" and that the American invasion of Iraq was for oil.
Now, when rivals dismiss his claim that Iraq is a war for oil, Paul can point out that Greenspan, certainly not his cheerleader, shares his view.
AFP Senior Editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media. 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 such as the Bilderberg Group.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The unstable world of Hungarian domestic politics was able to produce a new surprise: Suddenly a rapidly growing patriotic group reported to the local media that they will swear in 56 new officers for the Hungarian Guard in the old town section of Budapest.
The reaction of the mostly ex-communist Hungarian government and the left in general was as if someone detonated a ten-ton nuclear bomb in the parliament's cafeteria during lunch.
You may recall the events that started last September: Violent confrontations were taking place for months after the Jewish prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, admitted in a taped speech to his insiders that his party won the last elections by lying to the voters and that he was manipulating the economic data of the country.
The same day when the recording was published (9-17-06), this reporter was at the front of the Hungarian parliament building with thousands of others demanding the resignation of Gyurcsany. The government moved all available police forces into Budapest and six weeks of violent confrontations were started.
The police used hard rubber balls fired from shotguns to disperse crowds, maiming and blinding dozens of people. Unidentified chemical agents used by the police sent many to the hospital with severe respiratory problems.
Gyurcsany was micromanaging the action from a secret location after a few hundred demonstrators took over the state controlled central TV building in the center of the city for a night.
On Oct. 23, 2006, the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising against the Red Army—a national holiday—300,000 Hungarians were marching in dozens of different groups up and down the streets of this ancient city while tens of thousands of policemen were indiscriminately beating young and old, tourists and locals, firing thousands of chemical canisters into the crowd, arresting and beating people by the thousand, and running them down with horses and trucks.
It was a day to remember. The local activists have ever since been thinking hard to find a way to protect the population from this kind of uncontrolled, police-state thuggery.
A few weeks ago, Gabor Vona, a Hungarian nationalist leader, reported to the press the formation of the Hungarian Guard. The local constitution says the organization cannot offer training with firearms. This is a world where only government thugs and Israeli military/Mossad agents (used by the prime minister as bodyguards) can carry arms.
However, Vona strongly encouraged his followers to train at the local shooting clubs or anywhere they can. The Guard said its goal is to alter the political structure—a structure that has not changed since the Red Army left in 1991.
Hungarian nationalists have chosen to swear in 56 officers right away. Hungarians clearly remember the 1956 uprising in which the USSR brutally repressed a nationalist revolution that aimed to rid the country of communist occupational forces and Soviet influence.
At the same time as the Hungarian Guard was sworn in, Vona stated in his speech: "Blood will flow as the first act of the newly formed Hungarian Guard. . . . The Guard is planning to donate blood to the Hungarian Red Cross."
Nationalist George Kadar is an American citizen who was born in Hungary. He serves as one of AFP's European bureau chiefs. He can be reached via email at kennewickman@gmail.com. He now lives in England.
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|
Since the war on terror began four
years ago, Russia has watched as the American military machine,
under orders from puppet generals in Washington and Zionist military
leaders in Rel Aviv, has gone about the world wreaking havoc.
Russia watched as the United States built permanent military bases on her border. She watched as nations bordering her have been seduced into joining NATO for use as forward positions for American nuclear weapons.
President Vladimir Putin has calmly explained to the American/Zionist cabal that all of this can have but one result, and Russia is doing what is necessary to protect herself. Rather than taking these justifiable concerns to heart, America ignored them or dealt with them in a spirit of mild contempt.
Russia now understands that trying to talk reason is pointless and that it is time to unbutton the holster, as recent events show...
RIVAL TO NATO BEGINS FIRST MILITARY EXERCISE
The New York Times, Aug. 6, 2007 - "Thousands of soldiers and 500 combat vehicles will take part in ‘Peace Mission 2007' organized by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the Chelyabinsk region of Russia. Scores of Russian and Chinese aircraft begin joint exercises tomorrow before a week of military maneuvers from Thursday that will include Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. At least 6,500 troops are involved in what is described as an anti-terror exercise. Col.-Gen. Vladimir Moltenskoi, the deputy commander of Russian ground forces, said: ‘The exercise will involve practically all SCO members for the first time in its history.' The SCO was founded as a nonmilitary alliance in 2001 to combat drugs and weapons smuggling as well as terrorism and separatism in the region. It has since developed a role in regional trade and is increasingly regarded by Moscow and Beijing as a counterweight to U.S. global influence...."
RAF SCRAMBLES JETS TO INTERCEPT RUSSIAN BOMBERS
Times Online, July 18, 2007 - "RAF fighter jets were scrambled to intercept two Russian strategic bombers heading for British airspace yesterday, as the spirit of the cold war returned to the North Atlantic once again. Two Tu95 ‘Bear' bombers were dispatched from their base on the Kola Peninsula in the Arctic Circle and headed toward British airspace. Russian military aircraft based near the northern port city of Murmansk fly patrols off the Norwegian coast regularly, but the RAF said that it was highly unusual for them to stray as far south as Scotland. Two Tornado fighters, part of the RAF's Quick Reaction Alert, took off from RAF [station] Leeming, in Yorkshire, to confront the Russian aircraft, after they were shadowed by two F16s from the Royal Norwegian Air Force."
RUSSIAN BOMBERS BUZZ U.S. BASE IN GUAM
The [London] Telegraph, Aug. 16, 2007 - "Russian bombers buzzed an American military base for the first time since the cold war when they recently flew over the Pacific island of Guam. U.S. fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the two Tupolev-95 warplanes as they resumed the cold war era practice of flying over western offshore military installations in a mission on Wednesday. The incident, seen as the latest attempt by a revitalized Russia to project its military might, is likely to have unnerved the Pentagon and caused further perplexity at the State department over the Kremlin's mercurial course..."
RUSSIA PLANS ICBM TO COUNTER U.S. MISSILE SHIELD
Der Spiegel Online, 2007 - "The Russian navy plans on producing a new submarine-based missile system in 2008. It is part of a big increase in the country's spending on research, development and procurement of weaponry, prompting fears of a new cold war. Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country can produce missiles capable of piercing any defenses..."
RUSSIA STEPS UP MILITARY PRODUCTION AMID TENSE RELATIONS
The Guardian of London, 2007 - "Vladimir Putin's Russian government is stepping up its military production in an attempt to regain its place as the world's leading producer of military aircraft in the midst of tense relations between Russia and Western nations. Some analysts see Russia's latest saber-rattling as a reaction to U.S. plans to operate a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, both former soviet states..."
In addition to these and dozens of other stories that seem to be appearing on a daily basis, Russia has completed a deal for supplying both Iran and Syria with the latest and most technologically advanced air-to-air missile systems in preparation for a combined American/Israeli attack on either country. As well, Russia is busy building a naval base in Syria for the purpose of maintaining a "permanent presence" again in the eastern Mediterranean where she will be afforded the opportunity of monitoring events throughout the entire Middle East.
Barring some miracle such as George Bush being impeached or
a revolt taking place within the ranks of the U.S. military, it
appears that a change of seasons has occurred in which America
will have more to worry about than simply airliners being hijacked.
And, one again, jut like the disasters taking place in Iraq and
Afghanistan, what it all boils down to is the choke hold that
one tiny, troublesome nation maintains over the U.S., a nation
that refuses to live by what are accepted norms of decency and
polity, a nation wiped of the face of the Earth some 2,000 years
ago by the hand of fate, and, as is plain for all now to see,
with good reason.
|Top|
The federal grand jury - once independent and removed from a prosecutor's influence - no longer functions as the Founding Fathers intended. Former Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio) is not the only victim. In this series, Mike Brown examines what has gone wrong and what must be done to correct this problem.
In the 19th century Lewis Carroll wrote what we today think of as books for children, Alice-In-Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Adults at the time knew better. Carroll's two books were satires on the legal system. He couldn't come right out and say how corrupt the English courts were. England, to this day, has no freedom of speech or freedom of the press guarantees that our First Amendment gives us.
Let me prove it to you with an excerpt from "Alice":
I don't know what you mean by "glory," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously, "of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant there's a nice knock-down argument for you!
But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." (Carroll, Lewis, The Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonder & Through The Looking Glass, page 269 (Martin Gardner 1960).)
And who is master of us today? It isn't the people we elected to represent us in Congress. It's the federal judges. They can change at will any of the meanings of the words in the statutes Congress enacts. Here's an example:
Here, instead of the word "glory" having several meanings, the federal judiciary has changed the meaning of the word "whoever" in 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2):
(c) Whoever -
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing , or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demand, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
At least one federal judge did not follow the Humpty Dumpty reasoning of other federal judges.
But I write separately to state my disagreement with the majority's holding that the word "whoever" in 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), as it is used to define the class of persons who can violate the statute, cannot include the government or its agents. The majority's interpretation would permit the conclusion that consistent with the provisions of § 201, a United states attorney may pay a prosecution witness for false testimony. (United states v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297, 1303 (19th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (Lucero, concurring)
Which is what appears to have happened to Congressman Jim Traficant at the hands of Craig S. Morford, the new No. 2 man in the Department of Justice.
Justice Felix Frankfurter, in a scholarly dissertation, found at 47 Columbia Law Review 527 (1947), expressed:
To go beyond the stature is to usurp a power which our democracy has lodged in its elected legislature. The great judges have constantly admonished their brethren of the need for discipline fo observing the limitations. A judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge not to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policy-making might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation. He must not read out except to avoid patent nonsense of internal contradiction.
The "must not" language of Justice Frankfurter appears to be exactly what today's federal judges are doing in regards to 18 U.S.C. § 201©)(2).
The federal courts make much of the principle that witnesses are only bribed with more lenient sentences for truthful testimony, which, of course, makes such bribery legally acceptable.
The anti-bribery statute is only one example of the Alice-In-Wonderland usage of the English language in the courts. Other examples would fill a large book. One more should suffice here.
Prior to our Civil War and at the time our Constitution was written, the word "prosecutor" meant complaining witness, not a permanent government lawyer. Even today the word "prosecutrix" doesn't mean a female government lawyer. It means a female complaining witness.
Mike Brown is a judicial analyst and a proponent fo alternative
energy solutions. He is also the proprietor of Century 22 Steam,
PO, Box 1857, Front Royal, VA 22630. Call him at 417-887-8919
or visit www.mikebrownsolutions.com.
|Top|
More than half a dozen active-duty servicemen involved in high-profile and highly political events have died recently on non-combat incidents. Some observers allege they were killed because of explosive information they possessed a situation made worse by the lack of information made available from government agencies.
The first case involves two soldiers, Sgt. Omar Mora and Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq shortly after the piece The War As We Saw It appeared in the New York Times. The piece was highly critical and contradictory to the rosy picture that is being painted of U.S. "Success" in Iraq given in the "Petraeus Report" issued to Congress. Another serviceman co-authoring the piece, Staff Sgt. Jeremy Murphy, was shot in the head in Iraq in August but survived.
The other recent deaths involve members of the Air Force who have been tied directly or indirectly to the incident on August 30 when five nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were "accidentally" flown from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFP in Louisiana. Readers may recall AFP's interview in the Sept. 24 issue with Larry Johnson, former director of operations for the Central Intelligence Agency, who pointed out the highly-irregular nature of this incident and how - given the ultra-strict rules and protocols involved in handling nuclear weapons - it was impossible for it to have been an accident. Now, several service personnel involved in this incident have died.
The first case involves Airman Todd Blue, part of the 5th Security Forces Squadron that provides 24-hour security services at Minot AFB. Authorities said Blue's death is still under investigation. Next are the deaths of 1st. Lt. Weston Kissel, a B-52 pilot assigned to the 23rd Bomb Wing and Airman Adam Barrs, both killed in crashes.
On Sept. 15, a husband and wife - both active-duty personnel serving at Barksdale AFB - were killed in an accident involving the motorcycle on which they were riding. No other information regarding their names or ranks is yet available. Earlier that same week, another husband and wife team, Master sergeants Melvin and Lisa Peele were both struck by a forklift at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, outside Tucson, Ariz. Melvin Peale died but his wife survived.
Next is the death of Capt. John Frueh, assigned to Hurlburt Field located in Pensacola, Fla. After he went missing in Oregon, a missing persons report was filed and his body was found shortly thereafter. He was married with two children and was about to be promoted to major. His base, Hurlburt, is the headquarters of Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). Capt. Frueh was a veteran of Air Force special operations both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several calls to the Air Force, Pentagon and local police authorities involved in the investigation turned up nothing.
Is there a connection between these deaths and the explosive events reported in this newspaper?
Visit the website of Mark Glenn at www.crescentandcross.com. He presently lives
with his wife and children on a ranch in northern Idaho. He is
the author of No Beauty in the Beast ($25) published by The Barnes
Review.
|Top|
Although it would be unconstitutional, genocidal and a war crime, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their inner circle of "Neo-Con Israel First advisors are determined to attack Iran (Persia) because Israel wants it. This is documented in a series of exposes by London's Sunday Telegraph.
Bush's inner circle has decided for "the Great Decider" that he does not want to leave office without having a "Mission Accomplished in Iran" photo op. Pentagon bureaucrats have mapped out 2,000 targets in Iran to be bombed.
A bonus, they hope, would be the killing or injuring of Iran's gutsy president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, considered a no-compromise enemy of Israel.
A group of retired military officers urged war against Iran at a conference in Washington sponsored by the Iran Policy Committee. Saber-rattlers included Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney and Navy Capt. Chuck Nash.
To everyone's surprise, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), has been the lone hero preventing, so far, a disastrous attack on Iran. Fallon, who realizes that American military action against Iran would hurt America more than Iran and wants to bring American troops home as soon as possible, vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch. Inspired by this 35-year Navy veteran, patriotic Pentagon and CIA officers - foreseeing a debacle far worse than Americas experiencing in Iraq - are leaking the news that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated program of escalation leading to war with Iran.
A senior intelligence officer said to watch for stories of "Iranian meddling" in Iraq to soften up public opinion for U.S. attacks on Iran.
"A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation, " he says. "Over the next few weeks and months the U.S. will build tensions and plant evidence showing Iranian activities inside Iraq."
Iran has legitimate interest in Iraq, considering its 875-mile border with that country whereas the U.S. is literally on the other side of the globe. Events inside Iraq which has been devastated by American attacks, leave that country politically chaotic and unstable.
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was stable and progressive, with a 6,000-year history of civilization. Iraq had to be broutht down because Israeli leaders saw it as an obstacle to Israel's hegemony over the Mideast.
The Israeli/Bush war cabal hopes to provoke an Iranian response, such as Iran stopping oil shipment to the U.S. Or an American ship could be hit by what the compliant U.S. media would describe as an Iranian torpedo. It would not be the first time that American war hawks have manufactured an "incident" to stampede the public into accepting war.
The White House commissioned a study of the likely economic impact of war cutting off 16 million barrels of Iranian oil per day - about 20% of world production. They concluded the international market price of oil would soar to $120 per barrel. U.S. gasoline prices would quickly rise to $5 a gallon. BBC experts said oil prices would triple, exploding gas to $9-$10 per gallon.
The economic consequences for the United States would be disastrous. The whole world could crash into depression. This would bring American prestige around the world tanking even lower than it already is.
Patriotic military officers warn the Persian gulf is a saltwater lake dominated by Persia (Iran). Iran is armed with deadly Sunburst missiles - against which the U.S. Navy is defenseless. Experts warn the Navy's largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating mortuaries. If American ships are sunk, our troops in Iraq could be trapped. Pro-Israeli zealots, such as evangelist Hohn Hagee. Literally pray for nuclear Armageddon, believing that God would waft them up to Heaven, leaving Israel to pick up the pieces of a bankrupt, militarily crippled United States.
Meanwhile, without Iran, Israel - the third most powerful Nuclear-armed
country in the world, thanks to its nuclear weapons purchased
from the U.S. with American and German aid money or stolen by
Israeli spies, such as Jonathan Pollard - would dominate the entire
Middle East theatre.
|Top|
The real news is that Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejad is proudly and unswervingly continuing to assert his nation's sovereignty in the face of what many now openly call :the New World Order."
Speaking before the United Nations
on ‘Sept. 25, Ahmadinejad said the matter of dispute by the
United States and Israel surrounding Iran's nuclear program is
"now closed" and that his country will not submit to
pressure from "arrogant powers."
The issue is no longer "political" for the U.S.-dominated UN Security Council, he said, but a "technical" one for observation and monitoring by the International Atomic Agency. The IAEA has refused to rush to endorse claims by the united States and Israel that Iran is engages in a fervent drive to build nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad did not mention in his UN speech as he could have that Israel is known to be one of the planet's best-armed nuclear powers - central to the problem of atomic proliferation in the Middle East, having been engaged in weapons development since the early 1950s. Israel does not permit inspections of its own nuclear arsenal nor has Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has, the latter a point the Iranian leader did make. In sort, Ahmadinejad - and Iran - will not buckle.
For failing to bend to U.S. and Israeli pressure, Ahmadinejad was hounded during his visit to New York with perhaps the loudest, most outlandish media spectacle that even that city has ever witnessed.
And while the media would have Americans believe the bizarre frenzy that erupted in the streets of New York was a spontaneous grass-roots uprising in opposition to the appearance at Columbia University by Ahmadinejad prior to his UN speech, nothing could be further from the truth.
The carefully-coordinated agitation was "street theater" orchestrated by a well-financed propaganda campaign by the powerful conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which includes Israeli lobby cogs such as the anti-Defamation League (ADL) among its members. The media predictably lent its historic special expertise in demonizing Israel's enemies (real and perceived to the circus-like atmosphere.
American politicians also screamed along with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) Sounding like other office-holders and office-seekers declaring in all apparent seriousness, that Ahmadinejad "is not just a threat to Israel, but the U.S. and the entire world." That view, say numerous Israeli writers - privately and in small-circulation books and journals - is absolute nonsense. They argue that it would be utter folly for Iran to launch an attack of any kind in Israel of the United States, knowing the retaliation that would follow.
Alter.Net's UN correspondent, Ian Williams, accurately described the media's schizophrenic approach to dealing with Ahmadinejad, noting that the media cast the Iranian as both "the supreme evil being and a superklutz at the same time." In fact, Israel's publicists have a long record of presenting Israel's critics in that fashion, adopting a "catch-all" lowest-common-denominator approach designed to both amuse and horrify.
Williams noted that when the president of Columbia University introduced the Iranian, calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" that it sounded "like a plea to Fox News and the ADL to give him a break" for not canceling Ahmadinejad's appearance. Fox, the television voice of Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch, the ADL and others have demanded the Iranian leader not be permitted to have a free forum on an American campus.
AFP correspondent Mark Glenn compared the media's assault on the Iranian and the behavior of many public officials to the antics displayed in the low-brow Hollywood film Animal House, a raucous, cheap, vulgar "comedy" about a college fraternity.
But there was an uglier, more dangerous side to these events. Rupert Murdoch's tabloid The New York Post, glowingly hyped a comment by one person, John Bedell - a Gulf War veteran whose brother died in Iraq - who said, "I wish one of these cops would come and shoot him. I would." The irony - which Bedell probably doesn't understand - is rich: Ahmadinejad volunteered for frontline service to fight against Iraq at a time when the United States was funding Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.
It took a Norwegian graduate student at Columbia, Stina Reksten, to underscore the nature of the efforts to silence Ahmadinejad. "I don't want to confuse the very dire human rights situation in Iran with the issue here, which is freedom of speech. This is about academic freedom of speech," said Ms. Reksten, whose views on freedom of expression, as enunciated to The New York Times, clearly diverge with those of the ADL and its allies.
Meanwhile, Renate Bridethal, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany and a critic of Ahmadinejad, pointed out in a letter to the Times that "if we wish to take the high moral road on grounds of freedom of speech, we fail by insulting an officially invited guest speaker before he has even spoken. This does not do credit to the principle of free speech."
Some people understood what the commotion was really all about and why the mass media was giving it so much publicity. Anti-war protesters from the Troops Our Now Coalition, who gathered outside the White House to decry the demonization of the Iranian leader. Held signs saying "Don't Appease Israel" and "Don't Terrorize Iran." Larry Holmes, a spokesman for the group said, "There's a hysteria in the media emanating from New York. And we know what it's about. We know that the government is in very advanced stages of planning for a war in Iran. And now we see the psychological preparation."
Holmes dismissed complaints about Ahmadinejad's comments about "the Holocaust" and of matters relating to Iran's comestic treatment of women and homosexuals as being irrelevant to the big picture: that is whether the United States and /or Israel will launch a military assault on Iran, even using nuclear weapons as some have urged, at a time when the United States is spending $750 million a day to pursue the ongoing bloody debacle in Iraq.
The Washington Post displayed amazing hypocrisy by suggesting editorially that it was Ahmadinejad who "managed to distract attention" from the issue of Iran's nuclear intentions when it was the media - not Ahmadinejad - that was caterwauling about Ahmadinejad's views on Israel and the Holocaust.
As informed Americans know, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has consistently been deliberately mistranslated or otherwise misrepresented by is enemies.
Regarding Israel, Ahmadinejad had said that he looked forward to the day when a single democratic state composed of all peoples in that country - Jewish, Muslim and Christian alike - would replace the state of Israel, perceived by many to be racist and religiously supremacist. He likened the withering away of that state to the demise of the Soviet Union.
In the case of the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad convened a conference in Teheran (which this writer covered for (American Free Press) at which a variety of viewpoints regarding the Holocaust were discussed, with many participants wndorsing the popular theory that "six million Jews were gassed by the Nazis" - hardly "denial" of the holocaust.
While the media also squealed abut Ahmadinejad's remark that there were no homosexuals in Iran, a comment he accompanies with a laugh, it was clear Ahmadinejad was saying that in Iran, there is not open homosexuality and acceptance of what he called "this phenomenon" as in the United States. Only naïve folks would believe Ahmadinejad was saying there were no homosexuals in Iran.
Alter Net's Ian Williams put it best when he asked: "of
what is Ahmadinejad guilty? He support the death penalty? Anyone
would think he was a Texas governor. Is the president of China
ostracized for threatening to rain missiles on Taiwan, for not
having elections, or for executing thousands of people a year?
No, we give him the Olympics, and all the TV channels will be
there."
|Top|
WARSAW, Indiana—Fleeced by confiscatory property taxes that threaten to evict them from their homes, dissolve their farms and businesses and make them paupers in their own communities, more than 300 property owners turned out for a Sept. 20 rally by the Advance America organization that proposes to lock the property tax genie in the bottle forever.
Indiana could become the first state to get rid of at least most, if not all, property taxes, especially for the homes of Indiana citizens.
Young people wondered how they could afford to continue living in Indiana, Older couples wondered how they're going to stay in their homes while paying the crushing property taxes that mainly fund public schools, where legions of administrators usually earn six-figure salaries, and expensive, often unnecessary school construction projects are rarely stopped.
Advance America founder Eric Miller, a former Indiana gubernatorial candidate who runs the outfit as a non-partisan educational organization, told the audience it's time for Hoosiers to take a strong stand for property rights—on the long road to financial freedom.
"You're only renting (your land) from the government," Miller said. "They will take your home, farm or businesses and they will sell it." But with this program, Miller said "We're talking about how you can finally own your own home."
While Miller did not mention it, the basic idea of property taxes described as "rents" can be traced back to the Communist Manifesto, which was ghost-written by Karl Marx on behalf of other interests.
Marx wrote in one of his 10 planks for communizing individual nations that the middle class must pay "rents" on their land permanently. Marx also called for an income tax; the inheritance or "death" tax; public schools; a monopolistic central bank and other communistic ideas that all are hard-wired into America today.
Miller said he has almost enough state legislators on board to win approval of a constitutional amendment that could strike a fatal blow against property taxes that have gone up 450%, $4 billion, since 1980. Indiana is trying to eliminate property taxes altogether because meaningless reforms that temporarily lower property taxes ultimately lead to even higher property levies.
In the state House, Miller needs 51 legislators on board and already has 43; in the Senate he needs 26 and he's got 18. There are a total of 100 House members and 50 senators. A simple majority in each chamber is all that's needed to propose a state constitutional amendment that would go to the voters for final approval.
Even in the best-case scenario, property taxes won't end until 2012. The Indiana General Assembly must give its final approval no later than 2009 for it to be put before the voters in 2010. And because Hoosiers receive a tax bill according to the prior year's assessment, the taxes assessed in 2010 are not collected until 2011. So the words "free at last" won't come until 2012 at best.
Meanwhile, Indiana property taxes may increase 15% in 2007 and could double in 10 years. If the property tax system is not abolished and everything stays on its present course, a couple age 45, for example, paying $250 a month in property taxes on a $150,000 home (which is typical for Indiana) could see that bill rise to $500 a month at age 55 and $1,000 a month at age 65. You hit retirement age, your home mortgage is paid off but your tax bill is $12,000 a year.
A 1% hike in the state income tax (1.9 to 3.4%) and a 2% percent sales tax increase (4 to 6%) are being touted as "replacement revenue" if property taxes sunset, said Miller. He said Gov. Mitch Daniels is reportedly "open to the possibility" of nixing property taxes. Moreover, in the 2008 elections all 100 of the House members are up for reelection and half the Senate. Miller urged the Warsaw audience to make property taxes the top campaign issue.
(For more information or to ask questions, see repeal property taxes comand advanceamerica.com online, or call 800-448-8683 or (317) 684-3300. Key contact information for the General Assembly is available.
American Free Press reporter Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com Watch future AFP issues for more on America's welcome acceptance of biofuels and other energy alternatives, helping end our gluttonous addiction to foreign petroleum.
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|
Ms. Sherry Peel Jackson
says she can't find any evidence to support government's claim
that U.S. citizens must pay income taxes.
Sherry Peel Jackson is a certified public accountant, certified fraud examiner and a former IRS agent in Atlanta. Several years ago she was determined to win a $50,000 challenge from Bob Schulz's We the People Foundation to prove U.S. citizens must pay income taxes. What she found out in trying to win the money has changed her life forever. The following interview conducted by the We the People foundation tells her story. AFP's questions are in bold face type. Ms. Jackson's are in regular type.
What prompted you to research the tax law after you left the IRS?
Some of my special clients, pastors, started asking questions about it. Stating that their members were talking about the income tax being illegal. One pastor called me and asked me to speak with one of the church members. This member and I talked for hours, and then she told me about a USA Today ad dated July 7, 2000.
I pulled the USA Toady ad up on a website belonging to the We the People Foundation for Constitutional education, headed by Robert Schulz in Queensbury, N.Y. Within this full-page ad was a $50,000 challenge given by William Conklin,. To this day I have not met Mr. Conklin, but I thank God he had the guts to put his money where his mouth is. The challenge was to show how to file a federal income tax return without waiving one's Fifth Amendment rights, and also to identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.
I was determined to win that $5,000. I even had the money spent in my mind. I thought: this will be a cinch. I pulled out my codes and regulations and began to gather information to prepare a report for Mr. Conklin, citing the answers he asked for.
Three days later, I was sitting at my desk with no answer. I set the codes and regulations aside for a few days and picked them up again, determined not to give up. The next week, while sitting at my desk, scratching my head, I realized that there was a bbig problem with what people are told versus what the codes and regulations say.
At that point I had to make a decision. Not only was it a personal decision but a moral decision. My Christian background taught me to be honest and truthful, but above all, choose God over man.
Here before me was credible evidence that the American people are being robbed of their hard-earned wages, that this fraud has been perpetrated for almost a century trough fear and intimidation, and that our government is ignoring the cries of the people for answers to this crisis.
I had to decide whether I was going to be an informed slave or get off the plantation. I decided to get off the plantation and actively educate others and myself about the misapplication and misrepresentation of the federal income tax.
What are some of the things people ask you?
"If we don't pay the income tax how would the country function?"
The answer is simple: the income tax revenue does not go toward running the government. On Jan. 15, 1984 the Grace Commission which was a private committee impaneled by President Ronald Reagan to find ways to cut government spending, found the following: "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt - all individual income tax revenues are gone before one dome is spent on the service taxpayers expect from government." This money actually goes to pay interest on our federal debt. The federal debt is paid to the Federal Reserve, which is not a part of the government but is a privately owned banking cartel that has never been audited.
Your hard-earned money is paid to the Federal Reserve to maintain control over your life and the lives of countless other human beings on this Earth. You can find several Internet sites that clock the federal debt as it rises per second. We currently pay the Federal Reserve over $36 million per hour in interest.
In addition, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, addressed the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II. The title of his speech was "Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete."
Why doesn't my lawyer or accountant know this?
If your accountant or lawyer does not know about the income tax hoax it is because they were not taught. I went all the way through high school, college and IRS training without this knowledge. The colleges and universities teach only what the textbooks contain. These same colleges and universities receive large sums of money from foundations - some of which may be directly or indirectly owned by the owners of the Federal Reserve banks.
Concerning textbooks: There was a CBS 20/20 special hosted by Sam Donaldson that proved outright fraud and deception in the textbooks of primary and secondary schools. One example was given where there were over 100 factual errors in the textbook. The most disturbing revelation from this show, however, was the fact that one high school history book contained three lines twice about George Washington, but six and a half pages of information on Marilyn Monroe. Since when did Marilyn Monroe carry more clout that the Founding Fathers? Answer: Since those with the cash to pay for the books started manipulating the content of the books.
It can be concluded that the same rewriting of history is present in the textbooks at colleges and universities also. In addition, I personally talked to some tax preparers who do know about these issues. They would rather continue to operate in error and perpetuate the system by keeping the truth from their clients in fear of losing this income, instead of finding other sources of income. I would rather dig ditches.
Why is the media not telling us about this issue?
It has been stated that it only requires about 5% or 6% ownership in a large corporation to significantly influence that corporation. Rockefeller is one of the original shareholders of the Federal Reserve. In July 1968, a subcommittee ofthe House Banking Committee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS, and the bank gained interlocking directorates with ABC in 1974. Through other companies, it appears that "the powers that be" control the major television stations, as well as the major newspapers and radio stations.
It has been reported that in 1953, John Swinton, the former chief of staff for The New York Times, was asked to give a toast before the New York Press Club. The following is reported to be a quote from his monumentally revealing toast:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
"I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of the paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone. The business of a journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it.
"What folly is this, toasting to an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings, and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are the intellectual prostitutes."
I believe you, but I am afraid to fight the IRS.
My response to this comment mirrors that of Ms. Devvy Kidd. It may be harsh, but when does fear become cowardice? What if the Founding fathers had been too afraid to stand against the British troops? What if the Quakers were too afraid to stand up against slavery? What if the American troops had been too afraid to advance at Normandy? Are your golf clubs, your Lexus and your fine clothes a fair trade for the future of our children? Are you willing to be a slave in order to remain in your comfort zone? Pause and think about that.
The Bible says give unto Caesar that is Caesar's and we are to obey authority.
The response to that comment is this: The Bible actually goes on to say, "therefore if you owe taxes, pay taxes. If you owe tribute, pay tribute. "If" is a very important word, and there is a credible body of evidence that says most Americans do not owe income taxes. In other words, it's not Caesar's! Also, concerning authority, God is to be obeyed over man. "If" we are supposed to obey all authority then answer this: Where did Paul write most of the Epistles? In jail. He disobeyed the authorities of the day and chose to obey God.
From Genesis through the New Testament are several instances where citizens disobeyed the authority of their time because that authority worked against the mandates of God. If the government told you that you must kill four firstborn because we are overpopulated, would you? Of course not.
This all sounds like some kind of conspiracy. Do you have proof that this was done by design?
If your check your history you will note something very compelling. Karl Marx wrote what is called the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. This plan is a design for the government to rule over the people. In my research, I have noted that we currently have a legislatively enacted counterpart for each of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. The second plank is a heavy, graduated income tax. We have the Internal revenue service to make the people fearful and hand over the fruit of their labor.
As Ambassador Alan Keyes exclaimed recently, "If the government
has the power to tax even 1% of a man's labor, it has the power
to tax 100% of a man's labor, and that man is then a slave."
We are all slaves, by design.
|Top|
The federal grand jury - once independent and removed from a prosecutor's influence - no longer functions as the Founding Fathers intended. Former Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio) is not the only victim. In this series, Mike Brown examines what has gone wrong and what must be done to correct this problem, Part I appeared in AFP's October 1 edition. Here is Part 2 of Mike Brown's overview of the state of the federal grand jury in America today.
One of the problems in the federal courts is the use of "interpretation" to apply the law. In the 19th century the word "interpretation" in the federal courts meant to apply the originally intended meanings of Constitutional provisions and statutory enactments. Today the courts indulge in a form of "interpretation" that the public rightly perceives as "judicial activism."
Worse, federal judges often use an array of cases - precedent, the doctrine of stare decisis ( "to abide by decided decisions") as their reason for deciding a particular case a particular way. The problem with federal precedent regarding the Fifth Amendment indictment by grand jury clause is that precedent concerning federal grand juries is like a Chinese river: it can flow in two directions at once.
There are, theoretically, three separate branches of our federal government: legislative, executive, and judicial, Vice President Dick Cheney's chameleon-like contentions notwithstanding. But, effectively, we operate under six "branches": the legislative, the executive, the judicial, the major media, the multi-national corporations and the alphabet-soup bureaucracies. According to some judicial ramblings, there is a seventh - the federal grand jury.
A Ninth Circuit court of Appeals case from 30 years ago illustrates the principle and the confusion.
In resolving disputes involving district court, prosecutor and/or grand jury, some appellate courts have attempted to pigeonhole the grand jury into one of the three branches of government created by the first three articles of the Constitution. For example, it has been said that the grand jury is essentially an agency of the court, and that it exercises its powers under the authority and supervision of the court. See United States v. Stevens, 510 F2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1975). On the other hand, it has been asserted that grand juries are basically law enforcement agencies and are for all practical purposes an investigative and prosecutorial arm of the executive branch. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 486 F.2d 85, 89-90 (3d Cir. 1973). To the extent that these apparently conflicting statements reflect the view that the functions of the grand jury are intimately related to the functions of court and prosecutor, we have no disagreement with them. That view is irrefutable as a matter of fact. But under the constitutional scheme, the grand jury is not and should not be captive to any of the three branches,. The grand jury is a pre-constitutional institution, See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 342-43, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), given constitutional stature by the Fifth Amendment but not relegated by the Constitution to a position within any of the three branches of the government. "The federal grand jury is a constitutional fixture in its own right...." Nixon v Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 487 F24 700, 712 n. 54 (1973); but cf. Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49, 79 S. Ct. 539 U.S. 41, 49, 79 S.Ct. 539, 3L.Ed2d 609 (1959). United States v. Chanen, 549 F2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1977).
A hundred years ago the courts were less confused. Two years afer congress allowed government attorneys into the grand jury room, those particular bureaucrats began behaving in a perfectly predictable fashion.
The case of United States v. Wells, 163 Fed. 313 (D. Idaho 1908) involved flagrantly abusive prosecutorial conduct. The prosecutor entered the grand jury room during that body's deliberations. When requested to leave by one of the jurors, he refused. He then expressed to the jury his personal opinion that the evidence established the guilt of the defendants and urged the grand jury to indict.
As part of his address, he stated that the Department of Justice in D.C. had initiated the investigation and now wanted the indictment and that therefore the grand jury had a duty to indict. He also commented on the "forgetfulness" of the defendants in their testimony before the grand jury. In short, "the prosecutor's address was a plea for an indictment, substantially in manner and form as a prosecuting officer would plead for the conviction of defendants before a trial jury."Id. at 322. This address, coupled with the prosecutor's demand on the foreman to sign the indictment and his brutal, badgering questioning of the witness, led the court to quash the indictment.
Today's federal prosecutors do exactly the same thing, though they have "shortened" the procedure with indictments prepared before the grand jury is convened and then "run through" the grand jury in a rubber stamp proceeding.
How else could then-Assistant United states Attorney Craig
S. Morford have obtained an indictment against Congressman Jim
Traficant, charging him five times for the same conspiracy?
|Top|
The long-suppressed topic of inordinate Zionist Jewish influence on American foreign policy is now being openly debated - as it should be. Independent voices that had been condemned for years for daring to talk about the power of the Jewish lobby are now being vindicated.
The release of a "controversial" new book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by two distinguished foreign policy specialists, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard - coming on the heels of a frenzy surrounding former President Jimmy Carter's candid criticism of that lobby - has sparked not only widespread discussion of the Jewish lobby, but also public consideration of the more important question: Is America's special relationship with Israel in America's best interests?"
The debate has pried open what Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, admitted - in a critical review of the book in The New York Times September 23 - is a subject "that many Middle East experts talk about mostly in private." The Times headlined Gelf's review with the notation that Mearsheimer and Walt "contend that the Jewish lobby jeopardizes the national security of the United States."
First launched in 2006 as an academic paper, there was - as the New York-based Jewish newspaper, Forward, noted correctly - little that was new in its pages. Anyone who had been reading American Free Press or who - going back to the 1960s - followed the work of Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist institution, knew the facts being reported by the two academics.
Indeed, much of the Mearsheimer-Walt material had already appeared two years earlier in The High Priests of War, published by AFP, the first-ever full-length exposition of the role the Jewish lobby and its neo-conservative stalwarts played in pushing the United States into Iraq.
Mearsheimer and Walt expanded their original paper into a book. Here, the two academics rush to proclaim themselves responsible critics of Israel and not irresponsible "anti-Semites," even though Jewish lobby voices continue to insist that what the academics are saying is "anti-Semitic" in nature, even if the professors aren't anti-Semites," implying, not so gently, that they are. Meanwhile, the professors allege other critics of Israel are "conspiracy theorists" and say that they themselves are not, even thought the two say the same things other critics of Israel are saying. These bizarre semantic gyrations are a diversion from the important material in the book.
What is also troublesome about the book is that although it is an assembly of important material the authors have little to say about Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons of mass destruction and barely note John F. Kennedy's strenuous effort to prevent Israel from building a nuclear arsenal and hardly note Israel's nuclear intrigues and the dangerous impact on U.S. foreign policy.
However, the fact that the book is generating discussion about the U.S. relationship with Israel is good, particularly when the Jewish lobby is now busy denying its culpability in getting the U.S. involved in Iraq, even as it escalates efforts to get America into a war against Iran.
This is all happening just as Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), is under fire for having dared to suggest that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (a registered lobby representing Americans who support Israel) "has pushed the Iraq war from the beginning," adding that, "They are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful - most of them are quite wealthy - they have been able to exert power."
For having made these remarks in an interview with Tikkun, a magazine published by a rabbi, Michael Lerner, who is an outspoken critic of Israel and the Israeli lobby in America, Moran has been accused of promulgating "age-old canards" that his Democratic colleague, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Md. declared are "absolutely not true," that is, "that the Jewish community controls the press, media, government and other institutions."
Moran's latest comments restated what Moran said in the spring of 2003 when he expressed his opinion that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
In truth, despite howls of denial by Israel and its lobby that they played no part in promoting the U.S. war on Iraq, published evidence indicates the government of Israel did call for a U.S. assault upon Iraq, a venture perceived by the Israelis and their American advocates as a first step toward action against other perceived enemies of Israel, especially Iran.
For example, on Feb. 18, 2003, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, reported that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was calling for the United States to move on Iran, Libya and Syria after what was presumed to be the successful destruction of Iraq by the United States. Sharon said: "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve." The Israeli prime minister told a visiting delegation of of American congressmen that "the American action against Iraq is of importance."
In addition, on Feb. 27, 2003, The New York Times reported that Israel not only advocated a U.S. war on Iraq but that Israel also believed that, ultimately, the war should be expanded to other nations perceived to be threats to Israel. The Times reported.
Many in Israel are so certain of the rightness of a war on Iraq that officials are already thinking past that conflict to urge a continued, assertive American role in the Middle East. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week that after Iraq, the United States should generate "political, economic, diplomatic pressure" on Iran. "We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after" a war, he said. Israel regards Iran and Syria as greater threats and is hoping that once Saddam Hussein is dispensed with, the dominoes will start to tumble.
Now the target is Iran. Just this month, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - an influential cog in the Jewish lobby - launched what it called "a public awareness and advocacy campaign aimed at focusing attention on the gathering threat of a nuclear-armed Iran to Israel, the middle East and the world."
The ADL sent 6,000 propaganda posters to Jewish synagogues and Jewish organizations across the country, declaring the campaign against Iran to be "a political and social justice issue of the utmost urgency."
Although even a wide-ranging array of Israeli journalists and
American Jewish writers sympathetic to Israel have quietly acknowledged,
buried in the pages of books and policy journals the most Americans
never read, that Iran is hardly likely to ever wage any kind of
war - nuclear or otherwise - against Israel, the Israelis and
their propaganda outlets in the United states are nonetheless
working to build up a public frenzy against Iran, setting the
stage for an American or Israeli attack on that Islamic republic.
|Top|
Following a week of street protests, more than 1,000 people marched on the United Nations Building in New York and attempted to serve a citizen's arrest warrant on President Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Earlier in the morning of September 26, a dozen separate feeder groups, consisting of a hundred or so protesters each, converged upon the plaza from across the city's five boroughs. Carrying placards and 20 large coffins, the marchers were organized by various groups, mostly left wing, including Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS-NYC), The War Resisters League, Witness Against Torture, and one with the thought-provoking name of Arrest Cheney First.
The coffins symbolized the unrelenting death and suffering caused by the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the illegal detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the network of secret U.S. prisons throughout the world.
Some found a touch of irony in the fact that the war protesters from the "far left" have begun to consider the decay of the Constitution an important issue. The major shift appeared evident on the opening day of protests when the marchers appeared with banners demanding "Defend the Constitution" in equal or greater numbers that those calling for a withdrawal from Iraq.
Rose McMillan, a grandmother from Springfield, Mass., carried her pocket Constitution and barked that the Bush administration had seriously violated constitutional law.
"How can this be happening?" a protester shouted at the assembled press on 2nd Avenue. The question was overheard and immediately answered by Mildred Wells from her apartment balcony, again directed to the press and not the one who asked. "It's happening because you idiots have ignored the Constitution for 50 years."
Many of those present on several sides called attention to what they said were increasing efforts by the New York City government to monitor political activities of Americans not only in New York but nationwide.
Sources on all sides say that since the election of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the city has embarked on a nationwide program of maintaining watch on political and social movements of individuals based on the assumption that they may have an impact on the city sometime in the future. This list includes organizations and individuals who may be in conflict with Bloomberg's policies.
The citizen's arrest has its roots in the common law and may apply whenever a private citizen witnesses or has knowledge of a crime having been committed by another person. Those undertaking a citizen's arrest have the full legal right to subdue and arrest any suspect witnessed in commission of a felony but can still be held liable in civil or criminal court for any harm or damages inflicted in the process.
While the serving of the warrant was thwarted by Secret Service personnel, the attempt spoke volumes to the world of the attitude of the American people toward the action in the Middle East—a war not declared by Congress—or at least it would have had it not been mostly ignored by the establishment media.
The arrest warrant remains active and charges that Bush, as commander-in-chief, bears responsibility for the actions of those under his command and for his own directed policies.
Under the principles of the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II, Bush would be indictable for all counts established in 1946:
• Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace;
• Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace;
• War crimes;
• Crimes against humanity.
However, lawyers told AFP that service of such a warrant upon the president would be little more than symbolic unless he could be taken into custody and held for the police. Considering his protection by armed guards everywhere he goes, such an eventuality is unlikely.
Merely handing the president the warrant would amount to nothing more than giving him one more "g—d—d piece of paper," which is how he was once quoted when referring to the Constitution.
Investigative reporter Pat Shannan has been uncovering domestic fraud, waste, conspiracy and abuse against American citizens for four decades. Originally from Mississippi, Pat now resides in Washington, D.C. Find out more about Pat Shannan at www.patshannan.com
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
NILES, Mich.—Indiana's second largest "Ron Paul Meetup Group" handed out 2,000 flyers for his presidential campaign while marching in the annual parade and canvassing other parts of the Apple Festival here.
Standing at a busy intersection armed with flyers, signs and enthusiasm, members of the group "Michiana for Ron Paul," named to signify their Michigan-Indiana orientation, conducted their second-ever roadside rally Sept. 30 on the festival's last day.
Their first rally in late August by a large shopping mall in nearby Mishawaka, Ind., was covered by Fox 28, the Fox News TV affiliate based in Elkhart, Ind.
Group leader Nilson Clark—who, at age 20, typifies the youthful support across all socio-economic lines that Paul is generating—said his constitutional message deeply resonates with a growing number of Americans who reject "politics as usual." This helps explain why Paul's campaign, on the same day as the Niles roadside rally, reached the $1 million mark in national fund-raising. The campaign easily surpassed the initial goal of $500,000 in a week's time to meet the Sept. 30 deadline for the end of the quarter.
"Dr. Paul was campaigning in New Hampshire with his wife, Carol, and their family when our $1 million goal was reached . . ." wrote campaign chairman Kent Snyder in an online news item posted at ronpaul2008.com.
"As the time drew near, they watched on a laptop as the counter reached the $1 million mark. They, along with staff, supporters and volunteers throughout the country then celebrated this extraordinary accomplishment: Over $1 million raised in seven days for the Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign. Remarkable!"
The big media likely won't be able to ignore or downplay Paul much longer. Paul himself noted in a news release that the kind of big-media publicity that his fund-raising success will spur will be considerable—far beyond what the Paul campaign could afford if it were in the form of advertising.
Paul leads all rivals in on-line support. MySpaceFriends reported that as of October 2, Paul had 66,055 voluntary responses to 39,215 for second-place John McCain. Inspired by this financial boost, "the meetup troops" are staying on course as their ranks grow.
"We have weekly meetings. We try to do activities two to three days a week," Clark told AFP, explaining that besides town festivals, the Michiana for Ron Paul group blitzes local colleges and universities.
"We're working with the Notre Dame college libertarians. We meet with them every other Tuesday."
Michiana for Ron Paul founder Ben Thompson of Elkhart, 25, who started the chapter in June and already has more than 80 members, recalls that he was especially impressed by Dr. Paul's economic outlook, namely the idea of flushing the Federal Reserve System.
"I was actually first interested in Ron Paul in 2004 when I researched libertarianism. I read Ron Paul's stuff and I've been a big fan ever since. . . . I liked it when he said we should not have economic policy set by a secretive group of men meeting in a marble palace."
Clark said he became a Paul fan over his foreign policy of non-interventionism as well as his economic views on getting rid of the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve.
According to Clark and Thompson, there are 1,000 Ron Paul meetup groups across the country comprised of about 48,000 people.
"We have 88 members and we're growing daily," Clark said, adding that the Indianapolis meetup group has 200 members and is Indiana's largest. The Lake County group has 70-plus, the Bloomington group (where Indiana University is based) has 60-plus, and a Fort Wayne group has 30.
The meetup groups network via the Internet and other means and organize rallies for a bottom-up campaign that is taking on the elite global managers who for decades have tried to keep Americans in a state of fear and confusion with their left-versus-right, divide-and-conquer tactics that cloud the issues and discourage Americans from fighting back.
But the campaign of a bold 10-term Texas congressman and former Air Force flight surgeon has legions of supporters who are entering the political battlefield with a fierce determination to show the establishment that the American spirit is amazingly resilient.
The Michiana for Ron Paul meetup group, No. 209, has an information line: (574) 970-4727, or go to http://ronpaul.meetup.com/209. To find any meetup group for Paul, go online to http://ronpaul.meetup.com. Ten new Paul meetup groups formed between Sept. 28-30. The nation's largest, in Austin, Tex. has 844 members. The Greater Chicago group has 670.
AFP reporter Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother's payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving and investing which helps the economy - that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending. But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are $9 trillion in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future - and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply - making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by un-elected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to "we the people."
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation are increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It's called the Constitution of the United States.
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal court (ICC),NAFTA, GATT, WTO and CAFTA are a threat to our independence. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor's prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
NAFTA's superhighways are just one part of the North American Union plan to erase the borders between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. This spawn of powerful special interests would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.
Let's not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on all of us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that
infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States
of America.
|Top|
When Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Teheran for the first time on October 16 it will not only be a slap in the face to George bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, but a sign that Russia does not approve of threats of unilateral military action against Iran. Putin also intends to stay in power in the role of prime minister.
Putin's visit coincides with a summit of Caspian states that include Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, all of them rich in oil nd natural gas. Two of them, Iran and Russia, favor setting up a gas cartel like OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries that controls the flow and price of oil globally,
Russia's relationship with Iran is multi-faceted. Russia not only exports weapons, missiles and nuclear energy materials to Iran but also is a partner with Iran in trying to forge closer links with Turkmenistan to prevent the U.S. or Britain from acquiring rights to that country's natural resources.
The Russian nexus of Iran and the other Caspian states is important to the Kremlin's sense of the significance of its profile in the Caucasus and Central Asia. They believe the U.S. policy of regime change in Iran is dangerous and laced with U.S.-Israeli self-interest. They see it as an attempt to fulfill a neocon agenda of Middle East domination by Washington and Tel Aviv. Moscow observed that Israel has been constantly revving up tensions with Iran and trying to condition the American public to accept military strikes. Russia is alarmed by reports that Vice President Dick Cheney had considered encouraging Israel to strike at Iran so that when Iran retaliates America could begin launching massive strikes against Iran's military, its nuclear industry and its infrastructure.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino recently accused Iran of provocation after it said it would retaliate if there was an Israeli strike. Miss. Perino's comments highlighted the absurdity of the pro-Israeli position at the White House. She was obviously unaware that it was not Iran that had threatened to attack Israel but the other way around. This year alone, senior Israeli figures, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and several generals, have publicly declared they would not rule out a military strike against Iran. In April this year Olmert mused that it might take 10 days and 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles to deal with Iran.
The Kremlin has resisted attempts by the Bush administration to buy its support for a tougher line against Iran. Informed sources say Bush tried the "carrot" approach by offering to scale back its planned missile defense shield in Europe, and to back down from supporting independence for Kosovo. There was also a suggestion that Washington would ease off in its support for Baltic states, like the pro-U.S. Georgia, that were proving a political headache on russia's boundaries. According to reports from the Kremlin, Putin refused to be "bribed," proving how mch importance he placed on Russia's relationship with Iran.
In order that Russia's Iran policy not be misunderstood, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov lectured the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner. He told him that, while Russia would not approve a nuclear Iran, it would certainly not permit unilateral action against Iran by the U.S. or its allies. Lavrov said Washington agreed in 2006 with other members of the Security Council that the "sole objective" of the council, and of Germany, which had been brought onboard to deal with the Iran issue, was to back the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency to make Iran compliant with IAEA rules.
In a deliberate thrust at the rush to war in Iraq in 2003,
Lavrov added that everyone should remember that the Iraq war began
after the IAEA warned the Bush administration that Iraq had neither
chemical nor nuclear weapons. His comment was a clear dig at the
U.S., which has been arguing that Iran is not only close to having
nuclear weapons, but it also has stockpiles of chemical weapons.
Those claims echo statements made by Colin Powell and Condoleezza
Rice in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, which are now known
to be lies.
|Top|
Los Angeles is sinking under the weight of Mexico's population explosion. California has about 39 million residents, and a majority are non-white. By the year 2050 this will jump to 60 million with Los Angeles being 80% Mexican. Whites and blacks alike are leaving California at a rate of 100,000 a year.
Los Angeles County will increase from 9.6 million to 13 million. Most of the increase is from Mexican immigrants and their high birthrate. Liberals argue that the low white birthrate should be replaced by more Mexicans in order to pay for Social Security in the future.
The problem is that Mexicans have a 50% high school dropout rate, an ingrained welfare dependency, crime involvement and drug gang wars. Many never learn to speak English. Also, many work for cash and pay no taxes at all. How is this unskilled, uneducated segment of the population going to pay for Social Security benefits? The answer is not forthcoming.
And how will this massive number of aliens in America affect the outcome of local, state and federal elections? Such a power bloc cold make, for instance, Spanish the official language of the state, or vote to secede from the United States and rejoin Mexico, as is the dream of many Mexicans.
By the year 2042, California, already majority non-white and
solidly Democratic, will be 52% Mexican, 26% white, 13%Asian and
5% black.
|Top|
Germany's Environment Ministry has warned the public about wireless technology, according to The Independent of Britain.
"Germany's official radiation protection body also advises its citizens to use landlines instead of mobile phones, and warns of ‘electrosmog' from a wide range of other everyday products, from baby monitors to electric blankets," the paper reported.
The controversy over this technology is heating up with the exploding popularity of wireless Internet networks which use low-level radio waves to transmit data.
Many government and scientific bodies insist that wireless issafe. But the technology is new and little research has been done on the health effects on human beings.
Most people do not have a wireless computer network, but do have cordless phones and other applicable household items. Also, exposure to radio waves from television and radio stations as well as microwave emissions from cell phones are all potential risks.
The Independent quotes an expert from Germany's federal Office for Radiation Protection as saying Wi-Fi should not be used "because people receive exposures from many sources and because it is a new technology and all the research into its health effects has not yet been carried out."
In a related story, parents in Chicago have sued the school
system regarding the incorporation of wireless networks in schools.
Should intested technology be anywhere near our children? Parents
want to know.
|Top|
In New Hampshire, where Colonial farmers once stood their ground against trained Redcoats as anger grew over British misrule, Ed and Elaine Brown stood their ground but were tricked and arrested by U.S. marshals who entered their property October 4, posing as supporters of the Browns' resistance to paying federal income taxes. The Browns argue that there's no law on the books requiring payment.
A lot has changed since "the shot heard round the world" launched the American Revolution. British taxes imposed unilaterally on the colonies were among the many reasons that independence from the crown was declared. But Americans today pay a dizzying array of heavy taxes at several levels that, in retrospect, make the taxes imposed by King George III and Parliament seem quite modest.
American and British soldiers no longer face each other but instead fight side-by-side in long, unwinnable coalition "police actions" that are draining the American treasury and spilling blood the world over—which necessitate huge expenditures and the confiscatory taxes.
But many Americans are not convinced the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that ushered in the federal income tax in 1913 was properly ratified; and no one can seem to produce a copy of a statute that requires payment of such a tax. Even former IRS agents Joe Banister and Sherry Peel Jackson—before they themselves rejected the income tax—say they tried to find such a law on the books in their official capacities, to no avail.
Furthermore, amid little, if any, publicity, income tax cases are being won in court by individuals. Louisiana lawyer Tommy Cryer, who did not file income tax returns, maintained there is no law requiring payment of the federal income tax and won in court on his criminal case recently.
Peymon Mottahedeh, creator of Freedom Law School in California, teaches about the history and fraudulence of the income tax. He respects the Browns' courage but said they are "unnecessary martyrs." He added, "We need more victories than we do martyrs." He also said that the Browns were "ill prepared" to go up against the government system that perpetuates the income tax. But people such as Cryer, who prepare for the fight, show that the tax monster can be slain.
"We did not have debtors' jail in America until the income tax came into the picture," Mottahedeh added, pointing out that the old concept of debtors prisons should not be allowed in a supposedly free country such as the United States.
Ed Brown had said that if someone would show him the law, he'd pay the tax. No one could show him the law. The feds prefer a show of force, as armed agents, including SWAT teams, had surrounded the Browns' large home in varying degrees for months.
For a while, it looked like the worst might happen at the Browns' home, but bloodshed did not occur even though local, state and federal police generally are showing increasingly less restraint—in shocking incidents ranging from unnecessarily rough arrests of teens to apprehending and detaining people at airports and along the nation's roadways with excessive force and often without probable cause.
The Browns were armed, as were some supporters, at times. A picnic and rally were held by supporters on their land in rural Plainfield in the summer. The patriotic rock band Pokerface performed, and notable speakers addressed the income tax issue, among other topics. But, with painfully few exceptions, we don't live in an age of impartial inquiry when issues are logically and boldly discussed in official proceedings. Today, judges typically refuse to hear arguments on the validity of the income tax as the Browns found out when they first went to court over this matter.
Ed stopped attending because he saw the proceedings as a sham. His wife attended a little longer but soon followed suit. The Browns maintained that U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe in nearby Concord did not allow them to secure the witnesses and evidence they needed for their defense, to ensure a truly fair trial that would explore the income tax itself.
Activists in South Dakota, California and elsewhere in favor of doing away with judicial immunity—who instead want judicial accountability—cite this kind of behavior when making their case (see jail4judges.org and related websites).
AFP is not aware of any independent witnesses on the scene at the time of the arrest. So it's not known whether any degree of violence occurred or excessive force was applied as marshals entered the house at a vulnerable time when there were no supporters present, caught the Browns off guard and arrested them and removed them from a home that the big media often called a "compound," that infamous word quickly assigned to the house of anyone, right or wrong, who resists entry by police for whatever reason.
The Browns, after keeping the feds at bay for about 10 months, are now in federal custody and have started to serve what is reportedly a 63-month sentence. Stiff financial penalties and the back taxes that the feds allege the Browns owe are likely to accompany their time in federal prison. The federal government claims income taxes were owed mainly from Elaine's former dental business. The physical assets of that business—Half Hollow Dental Center in nearby West Lebanon— were seized by the marshals on June 7.
Alabama-born Marshal Stephen R. Monier, who resides in New Hampshire and once served as police chief in Goffstown near Manchester, supervised the operation and commented: "Ultimately, this open door policy that they (the Browns) seemed to have, which allowed the Browns to have some supporters bring them supplies, welcome followers and even host a picnic—this proved to be their undoing. They invited us in. We escorted them out."
The Browns may face unspecified weapons charges, too, Monier said, adding that a small team of marshals pulled off the ruse to trick the Browns. The couple, convicted Jan. 18, 2007 in Concord and sentenced in April, had initially owed $625,000 in taxes on $1.9 million in income from 1996 to 2003, according to figures from the government, which also alleged the Browns hid their income. Those amounts have varied and still are subject to change.
While the Browns' electricity was cut off some time ago at their 100-plus acre homestead, the couple had stockpiled food and reportedly had some solar power capability, enabling them to survive for such an extended period of time. And while some may conclude that the Browns held out in vain, the validity of the income tax system—which comes straight from the Communist Manifesto in concept—runs totally against the grain of freedom and is being exposed for what it is: a tyrannical fraud. May their arrest be the ultimate undoing of this Marxian tax.
American Free Press reporter Mark Anderson can be reached via email at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
You are facing challenges in 2007 that we of previous generations never dreamed of. I'm just an old fighter pilot (101 combat missions in Vietnam) who's now a disabled veteran with terminal cancer from Agent Orange.
Our mailing list (over 22,000) includes veterans from all branches of the service, all political parties, and all parts of the political spectrum. What unites us is our desire for a government that follows the Constitution, honors the truth, and serves the people.
We see our government going down the wrong path, all too often ignoring military advice, and heading us toward great danger. And we look to you who still serve as the best hope for protecting our nation from disaster.
We see the current Iraq war as having been unnecessary, entered into under false pretenses, and horribly mismanaged by the civilian authorities. Thousands of our brave troops have been needlessly sacrificed in a futile attempt at occupation of a hostile land. Many more thousands have suffered wounds which will change their lives forever. Tens of thousands have severe psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. Potentially hundreds of thousands could be poisoned by depleted uranium, with symptoms appearing years later, just as happened to us exposed to Agent Orange.
The military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is under-funded and overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return intact. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed on, and children have been estranged. And for what? We have lost allies, made new enemies and created thousands of new terrorists, further endangering the American people.
But you know all this. I'm sure you also see the enormous danger in a possible attack on Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons. Such an event, seriously contemplated by the Cheney faction of the Bush administration, would make enemies of Russia and China and turn us into the No. 1 rogue nation on Earth. The effect on our long-term national security would be devastating.
Some of us had hoped that the new Democratic Congress would end the occupation of Iraq and take firm steps to prevent an attack on Iran, perhaps by impeaching Bush and Cheney. These hopes have been dashed. The lily-livered Democrats have caved in, turning their backs on those few like Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) who understand the situation. Many of us have personally walked the halls of Congress, to no avail. This is where you come in.
Many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests).
You, like us, wouldn't have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us does it for the pay and working conditions.) But you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.
Our oath of office is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." This includes a rogue president and vice president. Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember).
One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the duty, to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were "only carrying out their orders."
The Constitution that we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the "highest law of the land," equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. You should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.
I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and was prepared to refuse an order to "nuke Russia."
In effect they took the (non-existent) "button" out of the hands of the president. We were thus never quite as close to World War III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, "Why, sir?" Unless there was (in their words) a "damn good answer," nothing was going to happen.
If you in this generation have not had such a discussion, it is time you do. In hindsight, it's too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad. Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq and treason against the United States. But our voices never reached the ears of the generals in 2003.
President Bush could be court-martialed for abuse of power as commander-in-chief. Vice President Cheney could probably be court-martialed for his performance as acting commander-in-chief in the White House bunker the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
We in the military would never consider a military coup, removing an elected president and installing one of our own. But following our oath of office, obeying the Nuremberg Principles and preventing a rogue president from committing a war crime is not a military coup.
If it requires the detention of executive branch officials, we will not impose a military dictatorship. We will let the constitutional succession take place.
Respectfully,
Robert
M. Bowman, Ph.D., Lt. Col., USAF, retired
National Commander, The
Patriots
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Jim Broussard heard on his radio at home in Reno, Nev. That the El Jaripeo, a Mexican food store and bar, was flying the Mexican flag above the American stars and stripes. This is not only disrespectful to America but it violates the flag code.
To Broussard and others who took bullets for that flag, it was like a punch in the stomach. He grabbed his knife and headed for the cantina El Jaripeo. Parking his pickup truck in front of the target, he got out and began pulling the chain on the pole to lower the flags. The owner stood outside and watched without comment or intervention.
"I took out my Ka-Bar [Army issue knife] and began cutting," he said.
After a half-minute's struggle, he separated both flags from the wire, cradling the red, white and blue respectfully in his arms and leaving the Mexican offender in the dirt on the sidewalk. Broussard then paused and turned face-on to the camera and made a short statement.
"I'm Jim Broussard," he said, "and I took this flag down in honor of my country with a knife from the United States Army. I'm a veteran, and I', not going to see this done to my country.... but I want somebody to fight me for this flag. They're not going to get it back."
He then disappeared toward his truck with the American flag under his arm.
While cameras rolled, the owner of the cantina picked up the red, white and green flag from the sidewalk and took it inside without comment. He did not answer any questions of news people - either because he could not understand English or was just refusing comment.
There was talk of Broussard being charged with the crime of
theft, but some suspect that the bar owner will not press charges.
|Top|
Teddy Roosevelt Urged
Immigrants to Assimilate "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant
who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates
himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone
else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated
upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing
but an American.... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any
man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't
an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American
flag.... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.... and we have room for but one sole loyalty
and that is a loyalty to the American people."
|Top|
Democrats are proposing legislation that would allow a secret court to issue one-year "umbrella" warrants to allow the government to intercept emails and phone calls of foreign targets and would not require that surveillance of each person to be approved individually. The legislation, drafted by the Intelligence and Judiciary committee chairmen, is intended to reconcile civil liberties, privacy and national security concerns. It would overhaul the Foreign Intelligence surveillance act (FISA), a 1978 law amended many times that the administration says has been outstripped by technology.
The bill would require the Justice Department inspector general to monitor the use of the umbrella warrant and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress. It would clarify that no court order is required for intercepting communications between people overseas that are routed through the United States. It would specify that the collections of emails and phone calls could come only from communications service providers as opposed to hospitals, libraries or advocacy groups.
A court order would be required when the government is seeking
communications of a person inside the United States, but can only
be issued if that person is a target. A target is defined as a
person, group, cell or government of interest to a foreign intelligence
investigation.
|Top|
Republicans are running scared that most state parties are closing their primaries. So unless you're a registered Republican you will not be able to vote for Ron Paul in many of the primaries. GOP bosses are plotting against themselves in order to defeat the Texas Republican in the primaries.
Many states are doing this quickly and quietly and giving people little time to learn the new rules. For example, New Hampshire decided about three weeks ago that you had to change your party affiliation by Oct. 12, 2007, or it will be too late. New Hampshire also has a closed primary and only Republicans and possibly independents will be allowed to vote for Paul. This could change again before the primaries, meaning independents who think they will be allowed to vote in the GOP primary will be disfranchised without knowing it.
In New York, you must be registered as a Republican or you cannot vote for Paul, and, again, you had to make this decision by Oct. 12. In New York, independents cannot vote for Paul. The same thing is happening with New Jersey and many other states.
All of these arbitrary deadlines are designed to keep a candidate such as Paul from gaining momentum and making a last-minute push. Effectively, Paul had until Oct. 12 to get as many Democrats, and others to switch sides in key states like New York and New Hampshire, or they would not be able to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. That means that the people in power have shortened the Paul campaign to less than two weeks with the stroke of a pen. Aren't you glad you live in a "democracy"?
So, for all "fence sitters," the fence is about to crumble. You will not have the ability to affect the election at all. The rules are changing everywhere for independents. Now, if you are an independent in New York, Arizona or New Jersey and many other states you are not allowed to vote in any primary.
Paul's popularity bridges the gap between all groups. He is truly a bipartisan statesman and not an egotistical parasite such as the double-talking cockroaches he's running against in the primaries. Republicans like him as well as many Democrats. They find his small government, no income tax and anti-war stance attractive.
Paul is the first person in decades to have so many diverse
groups supporting him. The GOP fears a Paul victory. Paul is the
only candidate who has a chance to beat the Bush/Clinton cabal
and rather than allow that to happen the "stupid" party
is willing to work toward defeating their own candidate and hand
a victory to a filthy-mouthed female NOW socialist. Sounds like
1964 all over again. Republicans can become the "smart"
party by choosing their best candidate.
|Top|
IRVINE, Calif. It was not the fact that this reporter was under
surveillance at the Spokane International Airport by a man/woman
team when heading toward California nor that one of the scheduled
speakers, a Roman Catholic
priest, was detained for close to 30 minutes as a "risk to
aviation safety" by Michael Chertoff's Department of Homeland
Security that indicated that trouble was brewing for the upcoming
"No More Wars for Israel" conference in Southern California.
Rather, it was what took place in the days and weeks immediately preceding the event that portended problems for all those involved with what was to be an expression of the rights to freedom of speech, religion and association.
As far back as four weeks before the scheduled meeting, the hotel contacted one of the conference organizers and told him that persons claiming to be from the Irvine Police Department were calling all hotels in the area, asking if an event entitled ‘No More Wars for Israel" was scheduled, warning hotel proprietors away from having any involvement in it.
The organizers of the conference, foreseeing this as a likelihood, had booked the event in the name of "Liberty Forum" rather than anything indicating that it was to be a gathering of individuals opposed to the comings and goings of Israel. For months after the conference was announced, details as to the exact location were kept deliberately vague so that the forces opposed to freedom of speech and association would not be given a leg up in shutting it down preemptively.
In the meantime, this reporter was receiving daily emails from Zionist agitators, threatening that it was "only a matter of time" before the location of the event would be learned and pressure brought to bear in shutting it down. Besides this, several speakers whose names had been publicized as being scheduled to appear, as well as Islamic organizations in Southern California, began receiving emails warning them to stay away from the event, characterized by these agitators as a "neo-Nazi" gathering. As soon as the conference was made publicly known, the ADL posted details of it on its website.
Less than 48 hours before the conference was to begin, one of the organizers received a message from the events coordinator at the hotel with a bombshell: the demand of $20,000 within 24 hours or the event would be banned. The contract had no mention of any down payment. An attorney in the area was quickly contacted and given all relevant information. The lawyer informed the organizers that indeed there was no legal case for the hotel to impose such a fee. In the meantime, the hotel began asking questions about what the event was really about and whether or not this reporter (whose name was well known as the host) was involved in it. The attorney then called the coordinator and attempted to smooth out the difficulty, but despite the fact that about $8,000 had been quickly raised, it was insufficient for the demands of the hotel and the event was canceled.
In the meantime, people were pouring into Southern California, expecting to attend the much-publicized event. Since the event had been canceled, the rooms that had been booked had to be paid for up front instead of at the end of the event as previously arranged. This resulted in attendees and speakers being forced to pay for rooms they had already paid for, a minor problem compared to the fact that there was no location to hold the conference.
This reporter woke early on October 13 and began going up and down the street to every hotel in the area to inquire about the availability of conference rooms. In almost every case, there were rooms available suitable for the needs of the event, but when this reporter was forced to give his name, the hotels suddenly became "too busy" to take on any new business. These locales had obviously been visited by someone from the other side.
Another attempt was made to negotiate something with the original hotel where everyone was booked and staying, but the manager would hear nothing of it. Not even a stack of $100 bills a half-inch think was enough to induce her in allowing the use of just one smaller room for the event. With a blank stare that betrayed no emotion, the answer was the same to every question posed to her: "The event is canceled. . . . The event is canceled. . . . The event is canceled. . . ."
By mid-morning, things were looking bleak. People were pouring in not just from around the country, but from around the world, including Canada and Australia. With the limited funds the organizers had, rooms had to be bought and people were forced to bunk two to a room. It was at that moment that Dr. Hesham Tillawi of Current Issues TV, a seasoned political activist and one of the scheduled speakers, stepped up to the plate and saved the event from a melt-down. In a closed meeting with this reporter and some of the other organizers, his plan was simple-:
• Put 10 people on phones calling all over the city in search of a locale—a park, a library, a church basement, anything that could house people; and
• Revive the sagging morale of those who were dealing with the bitter disappointment of a conference that by this time was 16 hours past due by holding a protest outside the hotel.
Media was contacted, signs were made and then everyone there was briefed on their part of the plan. By 2 p.m. everyone had assembled outside the hotel, and with signs and placards began the victory cry in unison "NOMOREWARS FOR ISRAEL! NOMOREWARS FOR ISRAEL! NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL!"
The group of about 60 made its way down to the street corner where (simultaneous to the protest) two live radio programs were taking place via cell phone, Dr. Tillawi's normally scheduled Current Issues radio program featured on the Republic Broadcasting Network and one on Mike Rivero's What Really Happened.
Unmindful of what may happen if police were called for holding a protest without a permit, the group continued making as much noise as possible and with surprising results—honks from passing cars and "thumbs-up" signals from opened car windows showing support for what they were doing. Dr. Tillawi and this reporter spent the bulk of the radio program interviewing the various people there at the protest, both scheduled speakers and attendees. The mood was electric.
Protesters returned to the hotel to hear that a locale had been found for at least one night of the conference. Although it was close to 4 p.m., which meant a shortened speaking schedule, all boarded cars, shuttles and cabs and made their way over to a Greek Orthodox Church. The session began with a prayer from Fr. Christopher Hunter, one of the scheduled speakers.
Michael Piper opened the proceedings by welcoming everyone. There were about 100 present, close to one-third of the expected turnout had all gone as planned.
Speakers ranged from this reporter to Eileen Fleming, pro-Palestinian activist, Wendy Campbell of MarWen media, Chuck Carleson of "We Hold These Truths," Muslim scholar and publisher of New Trends magazine Dr. Kaukab Siddique. Instead of the fancy Italian dinner that was supposed to served at the Saturday night banquet, take-out pizzas were ordered. No one complained.
Following the meal, the keynote speech was given by Hesham Tillawi, who arguing like some highpriced/high-profile lawyer said the current wars in the Middle East were engineered by and for Israel and not for the ancillary reasons bantered about in discourse these days such as "for freedom" or "for oil."
One of the more memorable events was a speech by Phil Tourney, survivor of the attack on the USS Liberty who, after receiving a standing ovation, recounted his experiences on the day that Israel attacked the lightly armed American recon ship, followed by a question and answer session.
By the end of the evening, everyone was thoroughly exhausted. The ups and downs of the weekend's events had a strong emotional effect on all, and everyone headed back to the hotel. The next day, there was a small gathering at another locale that featured some of the remaining speakers, including the inimitable Dr. Fredrick Toben and rising anti-Zionist Internet writer Patrick Grimm.
One of the themes of the event the Jewish lobby and its stifling of free speech when it comes to the discussion of Israel was proven correct before the conference even took place. The fact that all had to be done in secrecy as if it were in a communist country and then that in the end the hotel canceled was proof positive that there can be no freedom of speech in any country where the Zionist agenda rules.
But there is a growing number of people, in America and throughout the world, who are standing up and allowing themselves to be counted among those who refuse go quietly into the night, who refuse to be silenced and who (in the finest traditions of America) are now beginning to say with one voice—"NOMORE WARS FOR ISRAEL!"
Fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn is a prolific writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. His book, No Beauty in the Beast, can be ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB (call toll free 1-877-773-9077 to charge to Visa or MC) for $28 ppd.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law four bills requiring all public school instruction and activities to positively portray trans-sexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten.
He has also signed bills undermining marriage and infringing upon the moral conscience of business owners, churches, and nonprofit organizations.
On Friday the 13th, Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren by requiring changes to all instruction and activities) and AB 394, 102 and 14 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of students, parents, and teachers via "anti-harassment" training).
Signing the bills was a switch for Schwarzenegger, who vetoed nearly the same bills last year, in the midst of his reelection campaign.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), which helped lead the statewide charge against these bills. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms. Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual- bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center."
SB 777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" (the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes) and "sexual orientation" (the bill's definition includes bisexuality). Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB 777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school.
Otherwise, "discriminatory" schools will be subject
to intimidation and lawsuits by the State Department of Education.
Under these bills, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2008,
the following will be eliminated from California public schools
because they are deemed to have a "discriminatory
bias":
• Textbooks and other instruction that portray marriage as only between a man and a woman;
• Textbooks and other instruction that say people are born male or female (and not in between);
• Textbooks that leave out transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual historical figures;
• Sex education and school assemblies that omit the option of hormone injections, or sex changes;
• Homecoming king and queen contests that allow only boys to run for king and girls to run for queen;
• Separate bathrooms for boys and girls.
"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools. "SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Tourney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms ‘mom' and ‘dad' or ‘husband' and ‘wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic —not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.
"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.
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|
FROM SOUTH TEXAS - The "big slab" formally known
as the Trans Texas Corridor, or TTC - may be "sitting on
the bench" for the next two years or so - with a ban on land-acquisition,
financing, design, maintenance and construction that went into
effect in the spring of 2007, mandated by the Texas Legislature.
But the financial interests ( and their camp followers) behind
this international superhighway project never seem to take a siesta.
For the continental "NAFTA Superhighway" ever to become a reality, the TTC - envisioned as a superwide "gateway" highway/tollway system that would ripple through many parts of Texas and gobble up huge tracts of land - would have to be built. Without it, the twisted dreams of super-financiers to fuse Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into a single superstate, using mega-highway systems to help bind three nations into one, could be jeopardized.
"If Texas fails, the whole country is a goner," says Amanda Teegarden, a determined activist and cofounder of OK-SAFE Inc., a nonprofit education and lobbying group tracking the actions of the North American Super Corridor Coalition, or NASCO, the outfit behind the technology (scanners, closed circuit TV, etc) for global tracking systems such as the one that would be used along the Interstate 35-corridor. I-35 runs from Laredo, Tex., and then north through San Antonio, Austin, Waco and Dallas, and then into Oklahoma and beyond. The TTC's main arteries wold include that route, enabling cargo to enter the U.S. at Laredo by the border with Mexico. The cargo might enter this hemisphere via Mexico's ocean ports.
Red Chinese shipping interests have a strong presence at such ports, and NASCO is a full partner in the network of Savi, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Lockheed-Martin company. Savi is a joint venture of Lockheed and the Chinese Hutchison Port Holdings company. And that company is owned by Hutchison-Whampoa, the huge Chines shipping company that controls key ports around the world
Teegarden told American Free Press Oct.16 that OK-SAFE - Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise - was started to stop the TTC. "That's our main goal," she said, adding that she's working with State Sen. Randy Brogden to withdraw Oklahoma from NASCO. The State, since the I-35 goes through it, belongs to NASCO and pays $25,000 a year for the "privilege." The effort to get Oklahoma out of NASCO is expected to get some traction early next year.
"Our legislative session starts in January," she said, adding that another goal of OK-SAFE is to defund the activities of the Security and Prosperity Partnership's Working Group - a key elitist organization behind the proposed North American Union (NAU). The NAU would be patterned after the European Union in its melding of separate nation-states into an unwieldy, continental superstate.
At a Sept. 29 "Defending America's Sovereignty" conference that OK-SAFE organized, Brogdon reportedly raised objections to the Security and prosperity Partnership of North America, arguing President Bush had secretly sealed the agreement with Mexico's the-president Vicente Fox and Canada's then-prime minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23,2005
The TTC would be a superwide slab of pavement with multiple lanes in each direction, parallel railroad lines, power and utility lines etc. But because Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed Senate Bill 792 in early June just after the part-time Legislature ended its session- after he had vetoed HB 1892, an earlier attempt to impose a moratorium on the TTC - the TTC has bee slowed down somewhat. That legislation was authored by State den. Tommy Williams to put a two-year freeze on private tollway deals in general, including the TTC.
The trend in America, which is being Bankrupted by endless overseas military excursions, a huge entitlement system and the shutting down or outsorcing of its domestic manufacturing base, has been to sell public assets to private entities, including foreign ones. Toll roads, such as the Indiana Toll Road, have been sold to such interests. And even state lotteries have been eyed as sellable assets. Michigan, Illinois and Indiana have flirted with that idea, as state officials and memoranda confirmed in a recent AFP inquiry.
"It's important we fully understand the implications of allowing private companies to operate and collect revenue on tollways before we release any control of our transportation system," Sen. Williams explained in a news release back on March 7. "This legislation establishes a 24-month moratorium on the privatization of state toll roads and prohibits entities from entering into any contract permitting a private participant to operate and collect revenue or selling existing toll roads to a private interest, including roads planned as part of the Trans-Texas Corridor."
While Jason Smith, a spokesman for Sen. Williams, confirmed Oct. 16 that the two-year moratorium on the TTC is binding, having taken effect in early June, all is not well in San Antonio, where the group San Antonio Toll Party is incensed over plans to convert portions of paid-for freeways, such as U.S. 281, into tollways with excessively high tolls. On U.S. 281, regular motorists are looking at 17 cents a mile and truckers could pay 46 cents or more, if the plan is finalized late this year. Moreover, tolls would be levied not only per-mile but also at interchanges, and entering or leaving the tollway. "It's gouge, gouge, gouge," said Terri Hall, a leading SA Toll Party member.
Hall said that the most infuriating thing is that $100 million in gas-tax revenues has been set aside since 2003 to make needed improvements to part of R.S. 281 in San Antonio, and that converting this paid-for freeway into an expensive tollway is totally unnecessary. "They don't need to toll this road; this is simply a money-grab," she told AFP, adding that sen. Williams's SB 792, in her view, is not enough. While her group backed HB 1892 and settled for SB 792, she said the moratorium on keeping private firms out of the toll road business is all good and well, but even the so-called public projects to convert freeways into tollways throughout Texas seem bent on steam rolling taxpayers.
Asked whether tis is a piecemeal way of building arteries for the TTC, Hall was unsure. But since a number of freeways besides 281 may be converted to toll routes, they conceivably could be adopted into the TTC schematic later, Teegarden noted.
"Texas will look like Swiss cheese if they do this thing,"
Teegarden said. "The TTC would have 4,000 miles if interconnecting
highways in Texasalone, with a new route along I-35 and the proposed
I-69 to the east as the main arteries."
|Top|
Federal Judge Michael Mukasey, one of the insiders fingered by 9-11 truth investigators as a major participant in the cover up, is President Bush's choice for attorney general. On the federal bench in New York from 1987 until he retired a year ago, Mukasey was also accused of bias regarding the true circumstances surrounding the 1993 attack at the World Trade Center.
Bush shunned his first choice and favorite of conservatives, Ted Olson, because of mounting Democratic opposition and chose someone who was recommended by one of his harshest critics, left-wing sne, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
When Mukasey presided over the 1993 WTC case, his Orthodox Talmudic extremism became an issue when a defendant moved to remove him on grounds that his extreme allegiances to Israel would result in bias against Muslim defendants. The appeals court dismissed the motion as "irrelevant." Many questioned "how anything could be more relevant."
"Why would it not be relevant if an ardent communist sat in judgment over an ardent anti-communist, an ardent Nazi over an ardent anti-Nazi, or an ardent Zionist over an ardent anti-Zionist," a syndicated columnist wrote.
Mukasey was also active in cases dealing with the 9-11 attacks, including the favorable rulings for the now0infamous Larry Silverstein in his battles with insurance companies - claiming double benefits on the grounds that the WTC tragedy comprised two separate terrorist attacks.
It was Silverstein, AFP readers will remember, who admitted on a 9-11 first-year-anniversary PBS radio and TV program that he agreed with the suggestion from a NYFD chief to "pull it" - referring to the demolition of Building 7 in the late afternoon of September 11. Not only does such a statement go a long way toward clarifying as well what really happened to WTC's North and South towers that morning but again emphatically raises the questions of why the establishment press as well as the co-called "9-11 Investigative Committee" totally ignored the incident.
Mukasey was overseer of the detained material witnesses of 9-11, including the five dancing Israeli nationals who were arrested by the FBI after they had filmed themselves with the WTC burning in the background. They had multiple passports, box cutters, large amounts of cash and turned out to be Israeli Mossad agents complete with military training in explosives and special operations.
Israel was suspected from the first day of pulling a "false flag" operation when this group across the Hudson was spotted "high-fiving" and cheering as the first tower collapsed. They were subsequently arrested detained and then silently and strangely spirited out of the country back to the safety of Israel.
Were these agents assured from the outset of judicial protection in the event of capture because Mukasey was chief judge of the Southern District? In detention for months, the, the five Mossad agents, along with dozens of other Israeli agents deemed the "Israeli Art Students Spy Ring," failed repeated lie-detector tests. These foreign agents had infiltrated offices of the FBI, DEA and Justice Department and were nabbed across the United States in the months both preceding and following 9-11.
In December, 2001, Fox News ran a nightly series on Israeli spying that revealed an extensive network in the U.S. with complete wiretapping access to almost any telephone in the country. It also revealed that for months these Israelis had closely monitored the alleged Arab leaders of the 9-11 attack.
As attorney general, Michael Mukasey will be in a position to quash any new or old dissent surrounding these and other suspicious.
A ling time close associate of another known 9-11 cover-up
artist, Rudy Giuliani, (Mukasey's son Marc is a partner at the
law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani), Mukasey would most likely
remain as attorney general should Giuliani be elected president.
Could this Bush appointment be in anticipation of such an eventuality?
|Top|
If anyone doubts that the Republic created by the Constitution is dead, he only has to watch the Republican presidential debates. Save for Dr. Ron Paul, all of the candidates believe a president can take the country to war on his own, though most concede it might be a good idea to "consult" attorneys and even Congress.
The Constitution, written by men more intelligent and better educated than today's crop of political duds, is quite clear. The president has no authority to take the country to war. The sole authority for declaring war rests 100% with Congress.
Naturally, if shipload of pirates sailed up the Potomac and began shooting at the tourists, you wouldn't need a declaration to authorize returning fire. American troops defending themselves while under attack is not the issue. The issue is that if a president wants to take the country to war against another country, he must, as Franklin Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor, ask Congress to make that decision.
The founding Fathers, having suffered under a monarch, deliberately created a weak president. His powers, as specified by the Constitution, are limited mainly to administering the laws passed by Congress, making appointments, negotiating treaties and being the official greeter when dealing with foreign powers. His role as commander in chief is limited to just what it says - the military. The president is not our commander in chief, as the current president seems to think.
Lest anyone be beguiled by the current politicians' determination to create an emperor and anempire, even the president's appointments and treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. Congress has sole authority over taxation and spending. Appropriations for the military are limited by the Constitution to two years. Furthermore, congress is elected independently of the president and is a separate branch of government. It is under no obligation whatsoever to do anything the president asks it to do, and the president has no authority whatsoever to do anything not authorized by Congress and the Constitution.
The constitution, which apparently not many Americans have ever bothered to read, is the supreme law of the land. It does not make suggestions, It commands. It was written in clear English. It has provisions to amend it, but it should never be amended by interpretation. That is always a usurpation of power and should be ground for impeachment.
There is only one way for the U.S. to be a real nation of laws. That way is for the people to demand that every single public official obey the laws as they are written and obey them to the letter. The current president seems to think he can alter laws with "signing statements" and legislate with executive orders. He should have been impeached a long time ago.
The kernel of the nut is this: In our constitutional republic, sovereignty rest in the people. If the people are too stupid or ignorant, too lazy or indifferent, to hold their public officials accountable for violating the laws and the Constitution, then of course they will deserve the tyranny they will surely get.
Self-government is tremendously more difficult and demanding than living under a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, all you have to do is obey. I fear that concept appeals to some Americans today. It's understandable. Responsibility can be a heavy load to carry. It's mush easier to relegate all of that to the Great Leader and just do what we are told.
Anybody who's ever been in the military or a jail knows what I'm talking about. When you are deprived of the ability to make choices, you are simultaneously relieved of the responsibility for making them. Responsibility is the other side of the coin of freedom.
Charley Reese is a nationally syndicated columnist whose no-holds-barred
style has won him a host of devoted followers who relish his free-wheeling
unabashed love of the truth, no matter whose ox is gored. Long
associated with The Orlando Sentinel, Reese was formerly
active in a variety of state, local and national political endeavors.
Write to Charley Reese at P.O. box 2446, Orlando, Fla 32802.
|Top|
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has made a dire prediction that the dollar could collapse to zero - precipitating hyper inflation, soaring oil prices and a global economic depression if current policies are continued.
"Once they realize the American people have awakened to the con game that's been going on - I think those people running the banking and monetary system aren't going to be too happy," Paul told the Alex Jones Show.
The Texas congressman forecasts that if current policies are prolonged, the dollar could crash all the way to nothing.
"If Bush is foolish enough to start bombing Iran, that might precipitate such a crisis as oil going to $200 dollars a barrel and really dampening the enthusiasm of the whole dollar," said Paul.
"If they continue what they're doing, it's gonna go to zero, we're gonna have runaway inflation, all paper currencies eventually self-destruct and are ruined, and we're in uncharted waters right now. This is the first time in the history of man you've had no solid currencies around the world and this has been going on for 35 years."
Paul agreed that elitists would seize upon a global depression by posing as the saviors and offering more control, police state and big government as the solution.
"This was the whole thing that started in the Depression," said Paul, "Scare people to death instead of blaming the Federal reserve for the depression and in the financial bubble of the 20's, they said ‘well capitalism failed, it was that stupid gold standard,' therefore we have to have welfare and of course everything they did prolonged the Depression."
Paul said his warnings about the impending collapse of the U.S. economy, which stretch back years, were helping his campaign gain credibility due to the unfolding crises in the market and the credit crunch.
"Because the people understand how the Fed screws up the economy and causes all the bubbles and all the changes that have to come from that, I'm getting a lot more calls, said Paul.
The congressman also discussed the continued success of his campaign and the establishment's attempts to stifle its importance. Paul said the reason that the democrats and Republicans are trying to speed up the primaries is because they don't like competition from third party and grass roots candidates and are trying to prevent them form gaining traction.
"The move right now is to try to close the primaries - do you think they're sincere when they say they want to have a big tent and incite new people in? They can invite a lot of new people in but they don't want constitutionalists, evidently because they want to make it tough to vote in a FOP primary," he said.
"It confirms the fact that the control of this whole system has been one party so to speak, it's one group of people that control both parties and right now I think the people are getting disgusted with it and they're starting to wake up," he added.
Paul said the popularity of his campaign outstripped even his expectations and slammed the establishment networks for attempting to skew him as a fringe candidate.
"It doesn't discourage our supporters, it enrages them," said Paul. "Theyalways claimed that there were just a few of us out there that cared and that they were bloggers manipulating the Internet - well you can't manipulate to the point where you get 35,000 new donors who average about $40 dollars a piece and raise $5 million and outpace many of the other candidates."
Paul said the other candidates had initially tried to ignore
his platform, before ridiculing it, to the point where they are
now being forced to adopt constitutionalist rhetoric in order
to compete with his burgeoning popularity.
|Top|
The main issue that keeps much of the Christian right from supporting Dr. Ron Paul is his position against the war in Iraq. A few are bothered by some of his libertarian slants, but even most Christians recognize we all win with his freedom message. A few more don't understand the concept of federalism, erroneously thinking that supporting the removal of jurisdiction of things from the federal level to state and local governments equates to support of things like drug abuse or prostitution. Still, that doesn't keep as many Christians from supporting Paul as the war issue does.
Some of the religious right begrudgingly support one of the Republican neo-cons, because of the "lesser evil than Hillary" philosophy (which may not hold up in the case of Rudy "Julie-Annie"). Many have a lukewarm support for one of the candidates who may be legitimate quasi-conservatives (Tancredo, Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback). The war is the big wall that keeps all those from flocking to Paul. There's one big blind spot the war supporters exhibit. If they could regain their sight, they would flock to Paul and he would easily win the GOP nomination. Let me turn a light on and illuminate that blind spot.
All of the republican candidates placed their hand on a Bible and took an oath before God and their countrymen to abide by the Constitution. Paul is the only candidate who wasn't lying when he performed that first official act. Every other Republican candidate supported violating the Constitution to attack Iraq, If a candidate will lie in taking his oath of office while touching a Bible, can we trust him about anything?
War should only be commenced legally. The Constitution they all swore to uphold requires a congressional declaration of war (something we haven't had since WWII), and congressional approval of funding. There's a reason for that, in fact several reasons. No one individual, not President Bush, or potential President Paul, should have the power to declare war alone. They are not committing their children to charm's way, they are committing everyone else's children to potential death and dismemberment. No one individual should have the ability to use America's young men (much less women) for his own ends. There needs to be the support of the congress, based on support of the people they represent.
Paul is not against war. He served five years in the military himself as a flight surgeon. He is against unjust and unconstitutional war. It was Paul who drafted legislation to continue to pursue Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, because they had some culpability in the 9-11 attack. It is Paul who supported using the constitutional method of letters of marque and reprisal to get them, if necessary. In fact, in the GOP debates, Paul is the only one who keeps bringing up the fact that almost all of the of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis and wondering why we are attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, but not even investigating Saudi Arabia. The other candidates go totally silent when he brings this up. They do not even attempt to defend the Saudis or explain why we have ignored their possible culpability. They just fo on as if Paul hadn't mentioned anything about the Saudis.
Requiring congressional approval gives opportunity to debate the war before thousands start dying. It gives the public an opportunity to make their wishes known to their own representatives. If there is support for the war, a congressman will have nothing to fear by voting to declare war. If there is not support for it - from the people who will be making the sacrifice - the congressman risks alienating his reelection, as he should if he denies those who voted him into office. War is a horrible thing. It should only be undertaken as a last resort, and with the support of the population. War should only be contemplated when the United States is in direct danger. Constitutionally, war should not be entered to protect other countries, especially ones that are not really our friends. When war is necessary, the goal ought to be to win as fast as possible and get the war over with. The reasons and stakes ought to be crystal clear.
With this war on terror, what is the reason we are attacking
Iraq? WMD that didn't exist? Because Saddam was a bad guy? Because
they have oil? Because they had little or no role in 9-11? Because
they used to have religious freedom and the right to bear arms
and mor liberty than most Arabic nations? Because we oppose Islam,
so we feel we can attack any Islamic nation to root it out? To
defend a UN resolution that Saddam may have violated? We had no
business attacking them if we can't name precisely why we needed
to do so.
|Top|
• He has never voted to raise taxes.
• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
• He has never taken a government-paid junket.
• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive
brandh.
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He voted against regulating the Internet.
• He voted against the Iraq war.
• He doe not participate in the lucrative congressional pension
program.
• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office
budget to the U.S. treasury yearly.
• He introduced numerous pieces of substantive legislation
each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
|Top|
Two leading Republicans on the House Oversight and Government
Reform committee are calling for an investigation into whether
taxpayers' 
dollars are funding
left wing political causes. Reps Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Tom
Davis (R-Va.) said they want to know whether California Rural
Legal Assistance has been using taxpayers' money to provide services
for illegal aliens.
They asked Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Dalif.) to convene a hearing to investigate the issue.
The nonprofit bases in San Francisco is funded through the Legal Services Corp. Which administers millions of dollars in federal grants to legal aid groups serving poor people. CRLA asked a federal judge in Washington to throw out a government subpoena seeking thousands of client records.
The subpoena was served in connection with an investigation by the inspector general for the Legal Services Corporation, which is trying to determine whether CRLA broke federal rules by providing legal services for illegal aliens, court records show.
"Legal Services Corp. Was created to endure those of limited means would have access to adequate legal representation," Davis said. "It was not created to become the legal arm for far-left advocacy groups that could not otherwise attract sufficient financial support to fund the legal and political services they desire."
Davis and Issa said they also want the Legal Services corp.
to investigate whether another group, the Legal Aid foundation
of Los Angeles, helped organize and advocate on behalf of the
Los Angeles Taxi Workers Alliance.
|Top|
Lawmakers are pushing legislation to make sure God is not excluded on certificates that accompany flags flown over the Capitol dome. Recently, the acting architect of the Capitol, Stephen Ayers, began enforcing a long-standing, but long ignored, rule that prohibits religious or political expressions on certificates he signs.
Every day congress is in session, flags are run up a pole, to "fly over the Capitol" for a few seconds, then pulled down, then another goes up in non-stop style, providing congressmen with gifts for constituents. (If you want one, just write your congressman.)
The bill introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Michael Turner(R-Ohio) replaces this "policy" with a law allowing God on the certificate.
"Un fortunately, some in Congress want to take away the First Amendment rights of Individual americans in the name of political correctness," DeMint said. "We must stop attempts by liberal in government from secularizing our culture and intimidating people of faith. Something is desperately wrong in America when our government says that pornography is protected by the First Amendment, but honoring God is not."
The Andrew Larochelle God, Family and Country Act is named for an Ohio boy, 17, who requested a flag from Turner's office to be flown September 11 in honor of his grandfather "for his dedication and love of God, country and family." the word "god" was censured from the request. This prompted calls from Republicans for remedial legislation.
"The acting architect of the Capitol believes he is required
to enforce a written policy put in place by his predecessor in
2003, until directed otherwise," said House Republican Leader
John Goehner of Ohio. "It was not applied in this manner
under previous House majorities. We are ‘one nation under
God' and rules and procedures of our national legislature should
continue to reflect it."
|Top|