October 5, 2009
- Bilderbergers Want Global Currency Now
- Reno, Ashcroft Guilty of Felonies in Traficant Case
- Grassroots Pressure Forces Hearing on Audit of the Fed
- Battle Looms in Congress Over Renewal of USA ‘Patriot' Act
- Congressional Panel Will Probe Who Caused Financial Meltdown
- Which Congressmen Are the ‘Most Corrupt' According to Watchdog?
- China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela Own Large Portion of America's Debt
- Anti-American Groups Want Your Freedom of Speech Curtailed
- Syria Vows to Come to Aid of Iran
October 12, 2009
- FBI Releases 'Edted' OKC Tapes
- TARP' Turning Out to Be Largest Taxpayer Swindle in U.S. History
- Barack Obama: America's First Jewish President?
- Scholar Supports Auditing Fed In Landmark House Hearing
- Real Reason the Fed Demands Extraordinary Secrecy by Ron Paul
- Bankers Don't Like Interest-Free Money
- Are We All Just Human Guinea Pigs? (H1N1)
October 19, 2009
- Senators Push for Iran Attack
- Disobey Call for Forced Vaccinations
- We Told You So: FBI Hides Truth About OKC Bombing
- China to NATO Alliance: End War in Afghanistan Now
- Trans-Texas Corridor is ‘Dead' Again, Says Texas Governor
- Civilian Detention Camps
- 'Mandatory Military Volunteerism' Sounds Like 'Draft' to Us by Ron Paul
October 26, 2009
- Jim Traficant Gives American Free Press Exclusive Interview
- High Court Ponders Fate of Tax Rebel
- Chicago's Infamous Strongarm Tactics Don't Get Olympics
- 9-11 Ballot Proposal Denied So Far
- FBI's Fibs About OKC Exposed by Insiders
- New Taxes Are in Fact on the Table, Says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
- Easy Solutions to Social Security And Medicare Financial Problems
- ‘FluMist Spray Worse Than Shot' says Doctor
- Humiliating Defeat, Bankruptcy Await U.S. in Afghanistan by Ron Paul
- Watch Out for Grassroots Tyranny
Bilderberg has had front-men call anew for creating a global currency and establishing major European Union-style regions for the administrative convenience of a planned world government. Both steps were taken in September, one by the new Bilderberg-crowned prime minister of Japan and one separately by the UN.
The Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called for a global currency in a report made public on September 7. UN countries should agree on a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, UNCTAD said. The dollar's role in international trade should be reduced to protect emerging markets from the "confidence game" of financial speculation, it said.
Heiner Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister, is co-author of the report calling for a global currency. He worked with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in 1997-98 to contain the Asian financial crisis. Summers is a longtime Bilderberg luminary and has been photographed by AFP at annual secret Bilderberg confabs.
Eliminating national currencies has long been a goal of Bilderberg as a crucial step in its plan to establish a world government. A nation's currency is a symbol of sovereignty, so Bilderberg wants to divide the world into three giant regions, each with its regional currency, for the administrative convenience of its world government bureaucrats.
Bilderberg used its immense power to get Yukio Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan elected over the Liberal Democratic Party, which had led the nation for 64 years. Hatoyama obediently called for an Asian economic bloc, similar to the EU, complete with a regional currency.
Bilderberg's goal is an "Asian-Pacific Union" and an "American Union," both modeled after the EU. The EU has its common currency, the euro, and a European Parliament that can impose laws on the once sovereign nations of Europe and a European Court superior to the highest courts of member states. The EU is effectively a single super-state.
The "American Union" is to evolve from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as it extends throughout the Western Hemisphere. The common currency is to be the "amero." Fortunately, Bilderberg's efforts in the Western Hemisphere have been stalled but the campaign continues using "free trade" propaganda.
Ultimately, the UN is to function as a world government with the General Assembly serving as a world parliament. Bilderberg, a secret organization of international financiers and political leaders, will serve as a world shadow government that dictates to the UN.
AFP correspondent James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media in Washington. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos—the book recounts Tucker's experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Although it was Janet Reno's Democrat-dominated Justice Department (under President Bill Clinton) that first initiated the criminal investigation that ultimately sent populist Democratic Congressman Jim Traficant of Ohio to jail, Republican Attorney General John Ashcroft (under President George W. Bush) eagerly kept Reno's inquiry in place when he assumed office and brought it to its fateful conclusion.
Traficant was convicted in 2002 on trumped-up corruption charges and was sentenced to jail, ultimately serving seven long years for crimes he did not commit.
Adding insult to injury, Ashcroft publicly honored the team that handled Traficant's prosecution, despite widespread perception that Traficant was "set up" by the FBI and the Justice Department in the first place.
The Traficant tormenters awarded with the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service were two FBI special agents, Richard Mark Denholm II of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division and Michael Pikunas of the bureau's Cleveland office. Craig Morford, the assistant U.S. attorney who had been the lead prosecutor in the Traficant trial, and Bernard Smith and Matthew Kall, assistant U.S. attorneys for the Northern District of Ohio, also received the award.
The last straw came in 2007 when Morford, was temporarily promoted to the post of acting deputy attorney general—the No. 2 position at the Justice Department. And although Morford was forced to give up the post when a permanent replacement was found, the promotion—by President George W. Bush—was clearly a boon to Morford's career.
Michael Chertoff headed the criminal division of the Justice Department at the time the Traficant trial was conducted and was later promoted to the post of secretary of homeland security. It was Chertoff who directed the Justice Department operations that led to Traficant's conviction.
All of these individuals—and others as well—should be prosecuted on felony charges for their blatant misconduct throughout the investigation and prosecution of Traficant. The book Target: Traficant* by Michael Collins Piper outlines the outrageous (and thoroughly illegal) maneuvering by the Justice Department and the FBI in the Traficant affair, building a totally fraudulent "case" against Traficant, based upon coerced and perjurious testimony, fabricated "evidence" and a wide variety of other non-evidence used to convict Traficant with the collaboration of a federal judge, Lesley Wells.
Ironically, Wells should have never heard the Traficant case: her husband was partner in a law firm that represented the interests of one of the key figures in the case against Traficant. The FBI and the Justice Department had between 60 and 90 lawyers and agents—or more—working to "get" Traficant.
What these Justice Department lawyers and FBI agents were doing during the four-year period that led up to Traficant's trial in the spring of 2002 was scouring all over Traficant's district trying to find anything they could to put Traficant in jail. What they did was find people in the district whom they believed were guilty of other crimes (tax evasion, corruption charges, whatever). Then the FBI and the Justice Department would take those people in and say, "We've got ya. What can you tell us about Jim Traficant? Did you ever give him a bribe? Did he ever ask you for a bribe? Did he ever do you a favor in return for a campaign contribution?" So there was this gigantic, taxpayer-financed army of FBI agents and Justice lawyers trying to find out everything they could about Traficant.
Youngstown had a reputation for being a center of organized crime. Traficant himself alleged on the floor of Congress and in interviews that a faction of organized crime actually controlled the local office of the FBI as well as judges—local and federal—in the region. And that was a provocative accusation by itself.
Thus it was—considering all of this effort by the federal law enforcement apparatus—that they would inevitably be able to find somebody somewhere who would be willing to make an allegation about Traficant in return for getting off the hook, in return for getting a reduced sentence, or some other form of favorable treatment in order to escape punishment for their own crimes that had absolutely nothing to do with their association with Traficant. Someone accused of income tax evasion, for instance, might plead guilty to the crime in return for probation, rather than a jail term, for having said that they had offered a bribe to Traficant and that he accepted it.
During this time, the media in Cleveland and in Traficant's home town played up the idea that Traficant was corrupt, working in concert with "the Mafia," constantly reiterating that Traficant was under investigation. And as a result of the media onslaught, everybody in the region knew about the investigation: businessmen, political figures, mobsters. Everybody was looking over their shoulders and saying, "I wonder if the FBI is going to come after me?" And that is exactly what did happen.
The FBI was approaching many, many people and what did happen—as could be expected—is that many people concocted lies (often under FBI and Justice Department tutelage) implicating Traficant. And this is what subsequently emerged during Traficant's own investigation of the intrigues of the FBI and the Justice Department.
When his case finally came to trial, the judge, Lesley Wells, frequently frustrated Traficant's efforts to bring this into the court before the hearing of the jury. In some instances, the judge actually barred defense witnesses that Traficant hoped to call. In other cases, the judge limited Traficant's questioning of witnesses called by the federal prosecutors in order to prevent all of the exculpatory facts from being brought to the jury.
In short, people were being told: "If you don't testify against Traficant, you'll be prosecuted for fake crimes and sent to jail." In some cases, these people—who were under the gun—simply made up things to satisfy the federal authorities. In other instances, there were those who had innocent dealings with Traficant that the Justice Department and the FBI twisted as to make those dealings appear to be criminal in nature.
The old saying, of course, is that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But there is no defense mechanism in a grand jury proceeding. A grand jury is conducted entirely by the prosecutors who bring forth evidence against a targeted individual who does not have the right to a defense. An individual who has been targeted can be called in and questioned by the prosecutors, but his attorney cannot come in and present a defensive cross-examination. So after several years of work and thousands of man hours spent, not to mention millions of dollars, the Justice Department cobbled together a multi-count indictment of Traficant.
There were headlines all over the country: "Controversial Congressman Indicted." "Racketeering." "Bribery." "Corruption." "Income Tax Evasion." It sounded very sensational and most people's reaction was: "Oh, here's another crooked congressman."
Even people who liked Traficant started to think that "He is a good guy who did a lot of good things, but he must be guilty of something. Where's there's smoke, there must be fire."
And that's precisely what the Justice Department and the FBI and their allies in the mass media (not to mention the Israeli lobby) wanted people to think.
However, for those who actually read the federal indictment and who were familiar with standard political corruption cases, any honest observer could only conclude that many of the charges were "trumped up," if only in the sense that the charges were penny ante in nature, hardly the major "crimes" that the Justice Department and the media were attempting to portray. Yet, even some Traficant supporters, in reviewing the indictment, believed—without having heard Traficant's defense, as of that point—that perhaps there may have been elements in the indictment that could result in a conviction. But that was before Traficant began responding publicly to the specific charges and outlining his defense.
And as noted, the indictment itself was only what was presented to the grand jury: there are no indications of the defendant's response to those charges. It's impossible to make a sound judgment of the nature of the charges until the defense is heard. As such, as Traficant's supporters began to explore the case, in the wake of Traficant's public contradictions of the indictment— those contradictions that the media dared to publicize—there were those who soon realized that there was indeed much more to the case.
It was more than just the government having targeted someone for political reasons and then finding evidence of that person's corruption. Rather, it was a sordid case in which the government was actually creating the crimes.
In other words, it was not a situation where the Justice Department had simply coerced false testimony against Traficant by threatening to indict someone who was guilty of other crimes not even involving Traficant, but in at least some instances the prosecutors had actually induced people to engage in activity involving Traficant for the purpose of trying to set him up and catch him in a crime, hoping that Traficant would fall into the trap by engaging in criminal activity—which, in truth, he did not do.
So all of this, taken together, points toward the fact that the case was trumped up from the start. And those responsible should spend time behind bars for doing it in the first place.
*Target: Traficant (softcover, $25, 163 pages, #TT) is available from First Amendment Books, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Free S&H inside the U.S. Call 1-888-699-NEWS toll free to charge.
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|
For over a decade, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has been introducing legislation to audit the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve, and every year it has been ignored—until now.
On September 25, his landmark bill will finally get an official hearing in the House Financial Services Committee. With 282 members of Congress—every House Republican and nearly half (104) of the Democrats—cosponsoring the measure, it looks promising the House could even pass the bill this year. But, whatever the measure's final outcome in Congress may be, it is the army of grassroots supporters who deserve the real credit for getting the bill this far.
Following the collapse of economies around the world in the summer of 2008, Paul's Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (H.R. 1207) received a tremendous boost. That's because, with the central bank's printing presses running day and night, churning out dollars, no one knows just how much the U.S. central bank has loaned or handed out to banks around the world. Fed officials have refused to disclose this—even while testifying under oath during congressional hearings.
Paul's measure would change all of that by opening up the Fed's various funding arms to congressional oversight and, more importantly, would allow an audit by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The audit, which would eventually be made public, would probe all of the Fed's operations involving both domestic and foreign banks.
Since Paul first introduced the 2009 version of the bill in February of this year, AFP has been regularly reporting on its progress. There can be no doubt that this newspaper's efforts, along with the hard work of other grassroots groups, have paid off.
Even The Wall Street Journal was recently forced to concede that the real stars of the show are the army of American supporters, who not only want to get a look at the Fed's books, but also close it down.
In its September 16 issue, the voice of Wall Street reported that activists across the country have refused to let this issue drop and have gone so far as to publicly call for an end to the Fed.
The Journal quoted Skip Cook, a roofing salesman from Little Rock, Ark., who has written to his local newspaper and representatives "incessantly" to get them to support the audit legislation.
"The outrage is so ripe for people to entertain this information," Cook told the Journal. "Pain brings a lot of people into the auditorium."
Even if the House passes the bill, it would still have to make its way through the Senate, where it faces tough resistance from powerful senators like Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). There can be no doubt that the private mega-bankers, such as the Rothschilds, will never willingly hand over how the Fed's internal operations work for their benefit.
Christopher Petherick is a journalist and publisher based in Maryland. For more information, see his website at www.brandywinehouse.us or write directly to BRANDYWINE HOUSE BOOKS AND MEDIA, P.O. Box 638, Cheltenham, MD 20623. Petherick encourages all readers with Internet access to sign up for AFP's free weekly email newsletter. It's loaded with house news and special offers available only to newsletter recipients and AFP web site users. See AmericanFreePress.net.
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|
CONGRESS will be deliberating whether the infamous Patriot Act
should be renewed in its entirety later this year, and already
watchdog groups and some Democrats are champing at the bit for
a fight.
The House and the Senate are holding committee hearings to investigate whether legislators should renew three controversial sections of the Patriot Act, which are due to expire at the end of 2009.
The provisions in question expand the power of the FBI to seize records like what Americans read at libraries and where they go on the Internet and to conduct eavesdropping on phone calls while investigating terrorism cases.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. law enforcement had been handed great powers that many contend violate Americans' constitutional rights, which protect against warrantless searches and government snooping.
In advance of the hearings, Sen. Russ Feingold (DWisc.) has introduced legislation that limits the powers of the FBI and other federal agencies. Feingold's 103-page Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counterterrorism Efforts Act of 2009 (S. 1686), called the "Justice Act," restricts the government's powers handed to it under the Patriot Act. It would hold private companies accountable for giving phone records to law enforcement without a warrant. It would also add safeguards to make sure searches for records will only be allowed for people believed to be connected to terrorism or spying.
So far, the bill has garnered support from powerful members of the Senate. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Ver.), who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, had this to say about the measure: "The Justice Act reforms include more effective checks on government searches of Americans' personal records, the ‘sneak and peek' search provision of the Patriot Act, ‘John Doe' roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities.
The bill will also reform the FISA Amendments Act, passed last year, by repealing the retroactive immunity provision, preventing ‘bulk collection' of the contents of Americans' international communications, and prohibiting ‘reverse targeting' of innocent Americans. And the bill enables better oversight of the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) after the Department of Justice inspector general issued reports detailing the misuse and abuse of the NSLs."
The bill has nine cosponsors and is currently being deliberated in the Judiciary Committee.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
A New Congressionally appointed panel says it will conduct a "no-holds barred investigation" into the collapse of the U.S. economy, including whether Wall Street and government regulators are guilty of any criminal wrongdoings.
Phil Angelides, a former California state treasurer who was tapped by Democrats to lead the 10-member Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, told reporters during the panel's first public meeting that his group will investigate top executives at large financial firms such as Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Aig and Bear Stearns, as well as mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He said that his group will eventually release all of its findings to the public, which he expects to be in advance of a December 2010 deadline set by Congress.
Democrat leaders in Congress and the president have both promised to pass legislation that would tighten federal regulations on banks and extend oversight to other institutions that operate within financial markets
Critics of Wall Street, however, fear that the congressional panel is yet another attempt to make it look like Washington is doing something to rein in the greed in the financial sector, which facilitated the collapse of economies around the world in the summer of 2008.
It's yet to be seen whether the current panel will have the
same impact as the Pecora Commission, the key financial group
in the 1930s that probed the stock market collapse of 1929 and
prompted Congress to pass the Glass Steagall Act in 1933 and
create the Securities and Exchange Commission. Glass Steagall
was the law that had placed a firewall between investment and
commercial banks. The Financial Services Modernization Act of
1999, which was introduced by Republicans and signed into law
bya Democrat president, effectively neutered that 1930s law,
resulting in the creation of the shadow lending industry.
|Top|
There was a time when independent watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) was attacked as being a liberal front organization bent on taking down the former Christian conservative congressman from Texas, Tom Delay. What are beltway insiders going to say not that the same group has released this year's list of the most corrupt congressmen and some of the most liberal democrats in Washington are now at the top.
Topping the list of CREW's 15 most corrupt members of Congress are Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), Rep. Alan Be. Mollohan (D-W.V.), Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), Rep Laura Richardson (D-Calif.), Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).
ACROSS THE BOARD
Almost across the board, the charges of corruption were directed against earmarks that these legislators had personally added into legislation. "Earmarks," more commonly referred to as "pork," refers to congressional provisions that direct funds to be spent on specific projects.
"Of this year's list of 15, at least 12 are under investigation:
Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), Alan Mollohan,
John Murtha, Pete Visclosky and Don Young (R-Alaska) are under
Department of Justice investigations, while Sens. Roland Burrisand
John Ensign( R-Nev.) and Reps. Charles Rangel and Laura Richardson
are under congressional ethics committee investigations,"
CREW wrote in its report. "Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Is under
investigation by both the DOJ and the Office of Congressional
Ethics, and Rep. Vern Buchanan is being investigated by the Federal
Election Commission."
|Top|
While 13,000 lobbyists in Washington are throwing money at policymakers, and Congress discusses a trillion dollar health bill, our major creditors such as China, Japan and Russia are gleefully watching America dig itself even deeper into debt. In fact, they are giving us the tools to do it by continuing to purchase U.S. Treasury securities.
In the past year, china has increased its purchase of Treasury bonds by approximately $30 billion, making it our largest creditor with a holding of more than $800 billion in bonds. As a consequence, Japan has been relegated to second place on our creditors' list with approximately $635 billion of our debt and Russia has moved into seventh place behind the UK with a stake of $120 billion. Third place features oil exporting nations, including some of America's loudest critics, namely Venezuela and Iran. That oil exporters' group now holds bonds valued at over $186 billion. As of January 2009, U.S. Treasury bonds worth $3.5 trillion were being held by more than 40 nations across the globe. Some estimates put the figure at $3.5 trillion and rising. Chile is holding over $15 billion in bonds and Colombia around $11 billion even though it receives massive aid from Washington.
Untimately, China is the 800-pound gorilla in the room of creditors. In 2008, it moved ahead of Japan by buying up almost half of America's securities debt, thereby placing itself in a unique position to influence our financial policy. During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama talked tough about reining in China's acquisition of U.S. bonds and forcing the Chinese to tighten their monetary policy. As president, his stance toward China has reflected none of that toughness or confrontational assertiveness.
Instead, in June he sent Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Beijing to reassure the Chinese government and public that the dollar was strong and America would always honor its debts. When Geithner conveyed those assurances to students and faculty at Beijing University he was met with derision and laughter. Still, nothing has deterred China from purchasing more of America's debt. Some experts argue that China has no intention of dumping its Treasury bonds while the cash return it gets from the U.S. gives it financially fluidity and the ability to shape the global financial scene.
In light of that, it now seems ironic that in 2000 experts in Washington were predicting a rosy financial future for America, claiming we would have surplus in the trillions of dollars within a decade. But, it only took five years to wipe out that optimism and to set the national debt on a path where it is now at $11.8 trillion (national debt clock). In just over two decades America has been transformed from being the globe's largest lender to being its biggest debtor. Nowadays, it relies on China, Japan and other nations to raise capital.
This year, the dollar has weakened against the yen and the
euro fueling concerns that if China were to dump 50 percent of
its bonds on the market the result would be an economic crash
worse than 1929.
|Top|
A fright train is bearing down on us at full speed Immigration
to the United States is out of control. Can we possibly save
ourselves in this
eleventh
hour?
Paul Fromm - in the spirit of Paul Revere and Israel Bissel - arrives from Canada shouting that the aliens are coming. Or, mor accurately, the aliens are here.
That whites will be outnumbered by others in the U.S. is a distinct possibility as early as 2040. If that happens we face the decline and ultimate death of our historic, cultural and patriotic values. Think South Africa and Rhodesia. Remember that illegals not only want but feel entitled to what we have built.
The late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and others destroyed the pro-European immigration McCarran-Walter Act in1965, denying that their action would change our nation in ethnic character - a lie they never admitted. The populace was brainwashed in multicultural education to accept radical changes in our immigration policy resulting in the present disaster.
How many illegals are in the U.S. today? The oft-quoted government figure of 12 million may actually be as high as 25 million.
Illegals are flooding our prisons, crowding our schools, bankrupting our hospitals and swelling our welfare rolls. As The Washington Times notes in a recent column, "The southern border is an open sore."
As Fromm puts it, "demography is destiny." He demands an immediate five-year moratorium on all immigration. Corporate, anti-populist and radical vested interests such as the Mexican organization, La Raza ("The Race"), of course ridicule any possibility of stopping the ongoing re-shaping of the U.S.
Could the economic downturn force Americans to wake from their stupor in time to avert cultural suicide and the fading of our sovereignty?
The "tea parties" around the country reflect the rising anger of the American people as they see, before their very eyes, the country they once knew undergoing catastrophic changes. In a real sense, "The natives are restless."
The elites will stop at nothing to co-opt if not crush this spirit of autonomy on the part of our struggling citizenry, who can expect no support from the liberal media.
Let us protect the courageous individuals like Paul Fromm who risk their livelihoods if not their lives as they oppose the corrupt and sinister forces of censorship and political correctness.
Remember that when the non-whites become the majority here there will be no quotas or set-asides for whites. Is that what you want your children and grandchildren to face?
Final Points;
• The degradation of our environment by illegals.
• A strain on our natural resources.
• The pressure on our infrastructure.
• Disease, health problems, loss of public morality, corruption
as endemic as it is in Mexico and all Latin America.
• Deadly gang activity.
• Non-white birth rate swamping white births.
• Illegals, when naturalized, will vote for the Democratic
Party, giving it a permanent majority.
• The end of English as our national language.
|Top|
Syria's Russian equipped and trained military may already
be preparing to hit Israel if the U.S. and the Zionists combine
to attack Iran, or 
so Ha'aretz
has recently reported. President Bashar al-Assad was quoted as
saying, "We have begun military preparations with in the
range of our options" given the possibility of an Israeli
hit on Iran.
Assad has been quoted in the past as desiring the Syrian re-occupation of the Golan Heights, and a war with Iran may be just the time for S yria to make Israel's life difficult. Hollow Israeli peace feelers with Syria have existed solely to spit the Iran-Syria axis which makes Israeli involvement in Iran very dangerous for the Zionists.
Recently, Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has paid several visits to Damascus in order to shore up the military relationship between the two countries, a relationship that goes back several decades. In 2004, syria and Iran signed a treaty of military cooperation in the event of Western or Israeli aggression.
Hence, Syria is treaty bound to attack Israel if war with Iran breaks out.
Recently Russian investments in Syria have received a blind eye from Washington as policymakers realize the problems inherent in the continuing syrian-Iranian relations. Washington is willing to permit Syria to arm itself so long as it does not use the weapons against Israel. Dyria has already rejected that option as the North Koreans continue to send nuclear materials to Syria. As Syria's already small oil output falls, her military potential relative to states such as Iran has developed as a second option for Syria in terms of regional influence.
The main player is Russia, which has supplied arms and technical assistance regularly to Syria and Iran after the ending of the cold war, but china and North Korea are also deeply involved in the resistance against Israel. Iran's slighting of the Chechen militants (who are mostly Sunni) played well in Moscow, and hence, Russia is the major supplier to the anti-Zionist coalition in the Islamic world. Assad's regular visits to Moscow have heightened and intensified this relationship. For his part, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made it clear that any attack on Syria is an attack on Iran.
Seemingly as a means of bringing the two states into a closer alliance, the Israelis complained to the Americans that the Syrians were a part of the Iranian nuclear project. Israel's interest was clear: convince the Americans that Syria and Iran were in essence a single military threat and hence, to use the Americans to attack both syria and Iran at once.
/recently, syria and Iran have signed a major deal to build a $2 billion oil refining plant in Syria, as well as creating a joint Iranian-Syrian banking sector. In March of 2009, Assad made this comment to the Arab League:
"The peace is never to be achieved with the enemy, which does not believe in peace, without the peace being imposed on it through resistance. Our desire for peace is the stumulus for our support for the resistance, which support is but the moral, national duty. It is our only option in the absence of other alternatives. We have therefore, to make the resistance beyond our circumstantial differences, as the cause upon which we are united, as the principle to believe in as long as occupation exists, and right usurped.
Our belief in and commitment to peace is as strong as our belief in and commitment to the resistance.
The BBC is claiming that the Israelis realize that a war with
Iran means war with Syria, and hence is preparing itself for
a war on two fronts, substantially raising the price for any
strike on Iran. China has hinted that it will supply the weapons
to Hamas and other groups to hit Israel in the event of war with
Iran. An attack on Iran could mean World War III.
|Top|
When the FBI released long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue was elated. His excitement subsided in one day, however, when he realized that the doctored finished product was not that for which he had been waiting for more than a decade.
This is only the latest chapter of a government coverup that began at 9:03 a.m. on April 19, 1995. Trentadue said he has received about 30 security tapes, including some images that were used as evidence at Timothy McVeigh's trial. McVeigh was convicted on federal murder and conspiracy charges and executed in 2001, even though private investigations showed that the Murrah Building was blown up from the inside and no ammonium nitrate fuel oil, which McVeigh was alleged to have used, was found at the scene.
FBI agents did not report finding any security tapes from the Murrah Building itself. However, in 2005, Oklahoma County K-9 Deputy Don Browning told this reporter and others that he watched as the FBI dismantled security cameras and removed the tapes at the Murrah Building only an hour after the blasts. "The tapes are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited," Trentadue said. He retrieved the tapes through a Freedomof Information Act (FOIA) request that the FBI had been fighting for years.
"The real story is what's missing," he said. The tapes turned over by the FBI, came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., during the crucial seconds prior to the explosions. "The more important thing they show is what they don't show," Trentadue said. "These cameras would have shown the various roads and approaches to the Murrah Building.
"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995? There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said. He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced.
"The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."
The soundless recordings show people rushing from nearby buildings after the bomb went off. Some show people fleeing through corridors cluttered with debris. None shows the actual explosion. Trentadue began his own inquiry into the bombing after his brother Kenneth died at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August 1995, after being picked up on a parole violation. Kenneth was never a bombing suspect, but Jesse Trentadue alleges guards mistook his brother for one (perhaps John Doe #2) and beat him to death during an interrogation. The official cause of Kenneth Trentadue's death is listed as suicide, but his body had 41 wounds and bruises, that could have come only from a beating.
A judge in 2001 awarded Kenneth Trentadue's family $1.1 million for extreme emotional distress in the government's handling of his death.
The FBI in the past refused to release the security camera recordings, leading Trentadue and others to contend the government was hiding the evidence that would prove that others were involved in the attack.
"It's taken a lawsuit and years to get the tapes," Trentadue said. Trentadue said he is seeking more tapes along with a variety of bombing-related documents from the FBI and the CIA. His FOIA request for 26 CIA documents was rejected in June. A letter from the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency, which reviewed the documents, said their release "could cause grave damage to our national security."
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|
CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE have been busy lately patting themselves on the back for staving off financial armageddon by handing out taxpayer money to Wall Street like it was Halloween candy. But while they're trumpeting the fact that some financial firms have returned a tiny portion of the trillions of dollars that were given to banks, reality is setting in that Americans will never see that money again and will be paying it off for many, many years to come.
In late September, legislators quietly assessed whether they should begin phasing out some government aid programs like the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which appropriated $700 billion— all of which had to be borrowed from bankers and foreign countries—to purchase bad investments, known as toxic assets, owned by financial firms.
So far, more than 600 potentially insolvent banks have been propped up by TARP. However, the program is set to expire at the end of this year, and doubts remain as to whether many lending institutions will be able to hold on without continued handouts from taxpayers.
TARP was initiated in late September 2008 following the collapse of the stock market. Since that time, a handful of firms have reimbursed taxpayers for money they received under the program to the tune of about $70 billion, or 10 percent of what has been given out. The debate in Congress comes as the chief bureaucrat tasked with watching over TARP recently conceded during Senate testimony that taxpayers will most likely not be paid back for all of the money they gave Wall Street.
Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 25, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, said that it is "extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will see a full return on its TARP investment."
By now, many policymakers inside the Beltway presume that Americans have forgotten how Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke originally sold the massive payout by claiming that taxpayers would eventually reap "returns" on their "investment" in Wall Street.
Today, we're being told that we should be happy that we will get back even some of that money. So now we know the truth about the TARP: It wasn't enacted to protect the economy. It was created for the purpose of covering up the greatest theft of taxpayer dollars in the history of the United States.
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|
ON DEC. 12, 2008, Judge Abner Mikva, a Jewish former counsel in the Clinton White House, quipped, "Barack Obama will go down in history as America's first Jewish president." The Wall Street Journal ran an article on April 21 that included a quote from Judson Miner, a Jewish lawyer, who gave Obama his first job in Chicago.
"‘I used to tease Barack that he had Jewish blood," said Miner. The connections to Judaism run even closer to home: Michelle Obama's second cousin converted to Judaism, was ordained a rabbi, and runs a Chicago congregation made up largely of black converts to Judaism.
Similarly, on April 16, 2008, the Los Angeles Times ran a headline, "Barack Obama Claims Jewish Kinship" after he told an audience, "My links to the Jewish community are not political. They preceded my entry into politics."
Obama's closest confidante, Valerie Jarrett, is the prot?g? of Marilyn Katz, a Jewish security provider for the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). According to scholar Arthur Liebman, 46 percent of all SDS delegates in the 1960s were Jewish, with five of nine presidents being Jewish.
Katz introduced Jarrett to Daniel Levin (Jewish) who gave her a real estate job, whereupon she worked with Obama's bagman, convicted felon Tony Rezko. Katz also founded the New American Movement (which included the Communist Party USA) with Rabbi Michael Lerner.
In regard to the president, one of Katz's clients, Project Vote (an ACORN affiliate), brought Obama to Chicago. She also introduced Obama at his first nationwide anti-war speech on Oct. 2, 2002; then served on his finance committee and as a bundler during the 2008 presidential race.
Further, Katz has known Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers (a disciple of the SDS) for over 40 years. Ayers is married to fellow Weather Underground member Bernadine Dohrn (Jewish), and served with Obama on the Woods Fund (which provided a major expansion in funding to ACORN). Ayers also arranged for Walter and Leonore Annenberg (Jewish) to name Obama to be the first chairman of the prestigious Annenberg Foundation in 1995.
Similarly, Valerie Jarrett's mother ran the Erickson Institute, where one of the board members was Tom Ayers, father of Bill Ayers. Bernadine Dohrn also served on this board.
Fellow Weather Underground founder Jeff Jones is married to Eleanor Stein (Jewish), and was credited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for writing most of the recent "stimulus bill" via the Apollo Alliance. Jones also served with Van Jones, a self-avowed Communist, in this same organization.
Then, none other than Valerie Jarrett brought Van Jones into the Obama cabinet. She boasted at the Daily Kos conference on Aug. 15, "We have been watching Van Jones for some years and are so delighted to recruit him into the White House."
In addition, Jarrett hired Michelle Robinson (Obama—the couple married in 1992) in 1991 to work in Mayor Richard Daley's office; then opened doors for the couple to enter Chicago's most liberal social circles.
Another influential member of Obama's Cabinet with close ties to Jarrett is senior adviser David Axelrod (Jewish). Jarrett first hired him at the Urban Health Institute, and then longtime Democratic insider Betty Lu Saltzman (Jewish) introducedAxelrod to Obama in 1992. Axelrod's two mentors were journalist/activists Don Rose and David S. Canter, both Jewish. Rose held membership in a Communist Party organization labeled the Alliance to End Repression, while their president and directors were Richard Criley, Abe Feinglass, Jack Spiegel and Norman Roth, all Jewish. Rose also knew Marilyn Katz quite well through the SDS, and the newspaper he owned pushed Marxist causes while also promoting Abner Mikva, one of Obama's early Jewish mentors. Not to be outdone, his partner's father, Harry J. Canter, acted as secretary of Boston's Communist Party.
The extent of this collaboration between various questionable factions in Chicago is reflected in the comments of Rabbi Arnold Wolf (who died in 2008), a Democratic Socialist. "We had a party for [Obama] at our house when he was just starting back in the 1990s. I said right away: ‘Here's a guy who could sell our product, and sell it with splendor.'"
From the research done on Barack Obama during the past few years, it's clear that his rise to power can be unequivocally mapped as follows. At the top exist extremely wealthy Jewish financiers such as the Rothschilds and George Soros, who've set his course in motion. To carry out this plan are mid-level Jewish operatives (Rahm Emanuel, Axelrod, Summers, Katz etc), along with hard-line Marxist sympathizers.
Lastly, at the street level are a host of black nationalists such as Van Jones and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose rhetoric is aggressively anti-white. Toss in a very pro-Obama unabashedly Jewish-controlled media, and it's ultimately clear how he reached the Oval Office.
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
On September 25, an expert made a stirring plea before the House Financial Services Committee during the landmark hearing on Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H. 1207), commonly referred to as the Audit the Fed Bill. Wood's statement follows.
Testimony of Thomas E. Woods Jr.
I am speaking this morning in support of H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. As the committee knows, this bill would require a full audit of the Federal reserve by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
On Nov. 10, 2008, Bloomberg News ran the following headline: "Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose." The story pointed out that the Fed was refusing to identify the recipients of trillions of dollars in emergency loans or the dubious assets the central bank was accepting as collateral. When the initial $700 billion congressional bailout was being debated last September, Fed Chairman ben bernanke and then Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson couldn't emphasize their commitment to transparency strongly enough. But, reported Bloomberg, "two months later, as the Fed lent far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans had no idea where their money was going or what securities the banks were pledging in return."
Matthew Winkler, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, put it simply: "Taxpayers - involuntary investors in this case - have a right to know who received Loans, in what amounts, for which collateral, and why specific loans were made.
This has been protrayed as a trivial matter being pursued by some cynical and uppity Americans who don't know their place. But there is no good reason for americans not to know the recipients of the Fed's emergency lending facilities. There is no good reason for them to be kept in the dark about the Fed's arrangements with foreign central banks. These things affect the quality of the money that our system obliges the American public to accept.
The Fed's arguments against the bill are unlikely to persuade, and will undoubtedly strike the average American as little more than special pleading. Perhaps the most frequent of the claims is that a genuine audit would jeopardize the alleged independence of the Fed. Congress could come to influence or even dictate monetary policy.
This is a red herring. The bill is not designed to empower politicians to increase the money supply, choose interest-rate targets, or adopt any of the rest of the Fed's central planning apparatus. It seeks nothing more than to open the Fed's books to public scrutiny. Congress has a moral and legal obligation to oversee institutions it brings into existence. The convoluted scenarios by which merely opening the books will lead to an inflationary catastrophe at the hands of Congress are difficult to take seriously.
At the same time, as we hear this objection repeated time and again, we might wonder just how independent the Fed really is, what with its chairman up for reappointment by the president every four years. Have these critics never heard of the political business cycle? Fed chairmen have been known to ingratiate themselves into the president's vavor close to election time by means ofloose monetary policy and the false (and temporary) prosperity it brings about. Let us not insult Americans' intelligence by pretending this phenomenon does not exist.
Moreover, try to imagine a Fed chairman doggedly seeking to maintain the value of the dollar even if it meant refusing to monetize a massive deficit to fight a war or "stimulate" a depressed economy. It is not possible.
If there is any truth to the idea of Fed independence, it lay in precisely this: the Fed may reward favored friends and constituencies with trillions of dollars in various kinds of assistance, while keeping the public completely in the dark. If that is the independence we're talking about, no self-respecting American would hesitate for a moment to challenge it.
A related argument warns that the legislation threatens to politicize lender-of-last-resort decisions. Again, this is untrue. But even if it were true, how would that represent a departure from current practice? I hope we are not asking Americans to believe that the decisions to bail out various financial institutions over the past two years, and in particular to allow them to become depository institutions overnight that they might qualify for assistance, were made on the basis of a pure devotion to the common good and were not political at all. Most Americans, not unreasonably, seem convinced of another thesis: that Goldman Sachs, for instance, might be just a little bit more politically well connected than the rest of us.
Opponents of H.R. 1207 have sometimes tried to claim that the Fed is already adequately audited. If this were true, why is the Fed in panic mode over this bill? It isthe broad areas these audits exclude that the American public is increasingly interested in investigating, and these are the gaps that H.R. 1207 seeks to fill.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that the monetary system we have now is sound and beyond reproach, and certainly better than any system that preceded it. My purpose today is not to render judgment upon such views, however deeply misguided I happen to consider them, and however inaccurate their implicit view of 19th-century financial panics. My point is simply this: if our monetary system were really as strong, robust, and beyond criticism as its cheerleaders claim, why does it need to rely so heavily on public ignorance? How can it be a sound banking system that depends on keeping the public in the dark about the condition of its financial institutions?
Let me also make clear that supporters of this legislation are strongly opposed to a watered-down version of the bill - which, incidentally, would only increase public suspicion that someone is hiding something.
If the Federal Reserve Transparency Act passes and the audit takes place, the American people will have achieved a great victory. If the legislation fails, more and more Americans will begin to wonder what the Fed could be so anxious to keep hidden, and the pressure for transparency will simply intensify. A recent poll finds 75 percent of American already in favor of auditing the Fed. The writing is on the wall.
The Federal reserve may as well get used to the Idea that the audit is coming. That would be a far more sensible approach than the counterproductive and condescending one it has adopted thus far, in which the peons who populate the country are urged to quit pestering their betters with all these impertinent questions. The Fed should take to heart the words of consolation the American people are given whenever a new government surveillance program is uncovered: if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
The superstitious reverence that Americans have been taught
to have for the Federal Reserve is unworthy of the dignity of
a free people. The Fed enjoys a government-granted monopoly on
the creation of legal-tender money. It is not an unreasonable
imposition for Americans to demand to know abut the activities
of such an institution. It is common sense.
|Top|
I was very pleased that the Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R. 1207) on September 25. The bill has 295 cosponsors, and there is also strong support for the companion bill in the Senate. This hearing was a major step forward in getting the bill passed.
I was pleased that the hearing was well attended, especially considering that it was held on a Friday at 9 o'clock in the morning. I have been talking about the immense, unchecked power of the Federal Reserve for many years, while the attention of Congress was always on other things. It was gratifying to see my colleagues asking probing questions and demonstrating genuine concern about this important issue as well.
The witness testifying in favor of H.R. 1207 made some very strong points, which was no surprise considering the bill is simply common sense. I was also no surprise that the witness testifying against the bill had no good arguments as to why a full audit should not be conducted promptly. He attempted to make the case that the Fed is already sufficiently accountable to Congress and that the current auditing policy is adequate.
The fact is that the Fed comes to Congress and talks about only what it wants to talk about, and the Government Accountability Office audits only what the current laws allow to be audited. The really important things, however, are off limits. There are no convincing arguments that it is in the best interests of the American people for anything the Fed does to be off limits.
It has been argued that full disclosure of details of funding facilities like the Fed's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, and the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, or PDCF, which enabled Massive bailouts of Wall Street, would damage the financial position of those firms and destabilize the economy. In other words, if the American people knew how rotten the books were at those banks and how terribly they messed up, they would never willingly invest in them, and they would fail.
Failure is not an option for friends of the Fed. Therefore, the funds must be stolen from the people in the dark of night. This is not how a free country works. This is not how free markets work. That is crony corporatism and instead of being a force for economic stabilization, it totally undermines it.
If the Fed gave its actual arguments against a full audit, they would not have mentioned anything about political independence or economic stability. Instead they would admit they don't want to be audited because they enjoy their current situation too much. Under the guise of currency control, they are able to help out powerful allies on Wall Street, in exchange for lucrative jobs or who-knows-what favors later on.
An audit would expose the Fed as a massive fraud perpetrated on this country, enriching a privileged few bankers at the top of our economic food chain, and leaving the rest of us with massively devalued dollars which we are forced to use by law.
An audit would make people realize that, while Bernie Madoff defrauded every one of us by destroying the value of our money.
An honest and full accounting of how the money system really
works in this country would mean there is not much of a chance
the American people would stand for it anymore.
|Top|
A majority of Americans still rightly believe that there was a larger conspiracy behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln than the official history indicates. Several Conspiracies in fact. Many believe Lincoln was assassinated because he created his own money system to run the United States while he was in office.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
During the Civil War (1861-1865),
President Lincoln needed money to finance the combat. The Bankers
were going to charge him 24 percent to 36 percent interest. Lincoln
was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a
man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved
country into a debt the country would find impossible to pay
back.
Eventually Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the war effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this idea. At one point he wrote: "...We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they have ever had - their own paper money to pay their own debts...."
The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, so people called them "greenbacks."
Lincoln printed over $400 million worth of greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the war. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil service employees, and bought supplies for war with it.
Shortly after that happened, The London Times printed the following: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
The bankers obviously understood. The only thing that is a threat to their power is sovereign governments printing interest-free and debt-free paper money. It would break the power of the international bankers.
IN RETALIATION
After this was published in The London Times, the British government, which was controlled by the London and other Rothschild bankers, moved to support the Confederate Duth, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy this government, which they said had to be destroyed.
They were stopped by two things. First, Lincoln knew the British people, and he knew that Britain would not support slavery, so he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that slavery in the conquered part of the South was abolished. The London bankers could no longer openly support the Confederacy.
Second the czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln. These shops of the Russian navy then became a threat to the ships of the British navy, which had intended to break the blockade and help the South.
The North won the war, and the union was preserved.
Of course, the bankers were not going to five in that easy, for they were determined to put an end to Lincoln's interest-free, debt-free greenbacks. He was assassinated by an agent of the bankers shortly after the war ended.
Thereafter, Congress revoked the Greenback Law and enacted in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national banknotes they issued were to be interest bearing. The act also provided that the greenbacks should be retired from active circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.
In 1972, the U.S. Treasury Department was asked to compute
the amount of interest that would have been paid if that $400
million would have been borrowed at interest instead of being
issued by Lincoln. They did some computations and, a few weeks
later, the Treasury department said the U.
S. Government saved $4 billion in interest because of Lincoln's
greenbacks.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT
There were changes in the money and banking laws for the next 50 years. Finally in 1913, the bankers were able to get their Federal Reserve Act passed through Congress, which replaced the National Banking Act that had earlier replaced the greenback law. If the government would have continued the policy of Lincoln, the warnings given in The London Times would have come to pass. America would be a debt-fre nation, the most prosperous in the world and the "brains and wealth" would have come here.
But with the federal Reserve act being passed, Congress gave
up its power to create its own money that it was fiven in the
U.S. Constitution, and handed this power to private bankers who
called themselves the Federal Reserve. The bankers had achieved
their ultimate foal: For not the United States operated under
a central bank that was privately owned. They now had the power
to run the country by controlling the creation of the money,
and were free to charge the interest they so desired.
|Top|
The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) admits
on its website that this powerful supra-government agency routinely
releases pandemic viruses into the population - "for our
own good," of course - and just to see what happens. WHO's
admission is buried in bureaucratese at:
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_safety_vaccines_20090805/en/index.html
Why would WHO or anyone use people as guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent?
One answer is if there is an occult conspiracy to rule the world; one of its goals would be population control. Many high-level officials in the Bilderberg, CFR, Club of Rome, etc., have said they want to do away with two-thirds of the people. Some even want to eliminate up to 90 percent - but they never volunteer to be first in line.
One method they propose to kill is mass vaccinations. They have secretly added toxins that cause miscarriages and female cancers to vaccines to reduce the population. Many governments, including Israel, are trying to develop genocidal, racially specific bio-weapons that will harm those who unleash the infectious weapons.
WHO has colluded with international pharmaceutical manufacturers that concoct so-called "mock-up" vaccines containing active ingredient of influenza viruses that have not circulated recently in human populations "to mimic the novelty of a pandemic virus."
On August 28, 2007, Baxter International Inc., a WHO favorite, filed a patent for producing a vaccine for a long list of viruses including H1N1 and its theoretical variants.
In December 2008 Baxter shipped a vaccine - to be used in 18 European countries - that was mixed with an avian flu virus (5N1) that has little ability to infect people with a seasonal flu that easily infects people. If this "mistake had not been caught in time the vaccines had the potential to be a biological weapon of mass destruction.
On March 5, 2009, Baxter's patent was granted just in time for vaccine production against a novel H1N1, referred to as "novel H1N1," was first identified and commonly called "swine flu." The swine flu is a genetically engineered virus, a re-assortment of four known strains of influenza A virus: one endemic normally infecting humans; one endemic in birds; and two endemic in pigs - all from different parts of the world - and since proven to have been artificially hybridized and nourished in a lab. Extensive analysis of the virus found that it also contained the original 1918 H1N1 flu virus, the avian flu virus (bird flu), and two new H3N2 virus genes from Eurasia.
On April 25, 2009 WHO announced it was working with Baxter to develop a vaccine that could stem an outbreak of a deadly swing flu strain in Mexico.
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius signed a decree granting vaccine makers total legal immunity from any lawsuits that result from any new "swine flu" vaccine.
John Holdren, President Obama's "science czar" and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, advocates a transnational "planetary regine" to take control of the United States and a global economy that would dictate the most intimate details of every American's life - enforced by an armed international police force. Holdren wants the government to force women to have abortions - as the Chinese Communist government does. He also wants to poison public water supplies to make humans sterile.
The U.S. government pumped $7 billion to rush unsafe fast-track
vaccines onto the market in time for the autumn flu season -
with plans to test after millions of guinea pigs have been injected
|Top|
TWO TOP REPUBLICAN SENATORS are not happy enough that the United States is waging two major wars and multiple small skirmishes along the east coast of Africa. They want the U.S. military to initiate a full-scale, genocidal war against Iran. Why? Because they don't want to put "too much pressure on Israel."
Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) went on national television on Sunday, Oct. 3, saying that the U.S. military should not only bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but should launch an "all-or-nothing" war against the Persian country with the goal of obliterating it.
And why should U.S. soldiers risk their own lives to kill innocent Iranians? To protect Israel, of course.
"If the sanctions fail, and Iran's going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, any Sunni Arab state that could, would want a nuclear weapon," he said. "Israel will be more imperiled . . . and I would rather our allies and us take military action if it's necessary."
But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, which are operating legally under international laws signed by every nuclear power except Israel, India and Pakistan—all allies of the United States—would not be good enough for Graham.
"If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities," he said. "We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float."
And why should an invasion be launched by the United States and not Israel, which the senator agrees is really the only country that might be threatened by a nuclear Iran? "It's too much pressure to put on Israel," said Graham.
But can Iran really be considered a threat to anyone? With a population of 70 million, Iran spends just over $7 billion annually on its military. Compare that to Israel, with a population of 7 million, which spends over $13 billion a year on its weapons, and the United States, with a population of 300 million, which spends $600 billion on war.
While Graham did most of the talking, cheerleader Chambliss couldn't stop nodding in agreement.
"Lindsey's right," added Chambliss. "It's an all or nothing deal. . . . A full-out military strike is what it would take."
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
A number of "stop the vax" efforts are taking place across America amid persistent warnings of a possible mandated "swine flu" mass vaccination of the populace, with alternative and mainstream news reports ranging from ominous scenarios of a deliberately created pandemic and planned large-scale crippling and killing of the population on the one extreme, to casual "the shots are available if you want them" reports on the other extreme.
Military exercises are even cited as possible dress rehearsals for gunpoint vaccinations and quarantines.
Yet, other sources suggest a lot more normalcy: one Midwestern daily newspaper noted that those catching the "swine flu" should just stay home at least 24 hours "after fever breaks," implying that it's unlikely this flu will kill anyone. Precautions for those who are still well are simply to wash your hands often with soap or sanitizer for "at least 20 seconds."
In this age of hard-hitting news on the Internet that feeble mainstream sources will not report—but with the potential for falsehoods, exaggerations and deliberately planted urban legends also present on the Internet—it's no easy task to say with certainty just how hard county, state, U.S. and global H1N1/swine flu shot advocates will push to vaccinate the greater population in the coming weeks. Yet, the bottom line is that more and more people will not take the shot.
Considering the known dangers of adjuvants and other highly suspect ingredients in modern vaccines, refusing the shot itself and avoiding any kind of nasal vaccine in spray form seem to be the only sensible course—no matter what plot is brewing. The best vaccination is no vaccination.
News reports appeared October 6 showing health care workers in Indiana, Illinois and Tennessee taking the nasal vaccine, FluMist, like willing sheep. Indeed, what is just as disturbing as government medical tyranny is the servility of Americans, particularly health care workers, to blindly accept the H1N1 nasal spray vaccine, amid troubling allegations that the spray—which is heavy with live viruses—could enable the viruses to incubate in the nasal tissue and then be released into the air by sneezing. This spreads the virus, possibly starting the very pandemic that thus far has not materialized, contrary to World Health Organization claims.
No matter what, Americans must refuse the H1N1 vaccine in needle and nasal form. But Americans must go beyond that and change every law in every state and at the national level that requires vaccinations.
Americans can force authorities at all levels and the profit-seeking drug companies that make these vaccinations to back down in a major way, and to "clean house" regarding any current or future attempts by megalomaniacs and mindless believers in all aspects of modern medicine to imperil the fabric of society with sordid medical schemes.
There are a number of good signs of much-needed resistance out there. New York healthcare workers held a morning rally at the state capitol in Albany September 29 "to protest the new regulations mandating that all healthcare workers with patient contact receive all CDC ‘recommended' flu vaccines… including the just licensed, un-safety-tested ‘swine flu' 2009 ‘H1N1-A.'
Members of [Ron Paul's] Campaign for Liberty are taking an active role in this rally," as noted in a news bulletin posted at HealthFreedomUSA.org.
So, in the short term we must greet "the shot" and "the spray" with bald-faced refusal and press on to expose the vast medical fraud that is our current system.
Remember, the clamor for national healthcare is about giving Big Medicine even more money and covering only conventional medical treatments.
Call and write your local and state health departments, local media and state representatives, contact the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control, and annoy your member of Congress and your U.S. senators about this H1N1 "swine flu" situation. Make it known that the vaccine is not needed and is unacceptable in any form under any pretense.
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as a corresponding editor for American Free Press. Together he and his wife Angie provide many photographs of the events they cover for AFP. Mark welcomes your comments and inputs as well as story leads. Email him at 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|
Only Americans with short memories were surprised by the new accusations of the FBI's ongoing cover-up of the Oklahoma City bombing, as charged by Utah attorney Jesse Trentadue. It actually has been going on since about 2 p.m. on April 19, 1995—following five hours of honest reporting by news people on the scene.
The remarkable change in the official story and the twisting of the facts made it plain that the federal government and the controlled news media had collaborated to deceive us. The initial reports that we have maintained on videotape for the past 14 years reveal an altogether different story than what's in the history books.
Immediately, the tragedy was thought to be (and reported as) a gas explosion from inside the building as evidenced by the immense amount of rubble blown out into the street and beyond. A worker from the newspaper office across the street later told us of the children's toys from the Murrah nursery being blown through his windows. However, it took only a few minutes to cast aside the accident theory and realize that a bomb had exploded inside.
Next it was announced that this was not only some kind of terrorist attack but that an unexploded bomb was discovered in the rubble and was being removed by the Oklahoma County bomb squad. Soon there was another.
"The first bomb did go off," says the OKC reporter. "The second and third explosives, if you can imagine this, were larger than the first. It is just incredible to think that there was that much heavy artillery that was somehow moved into the downtown federal building."
Indeed it was, but such truth would lead to demands for an investigation that might reveal way too much information (just as the independent investigations later did) and had to be quashed.
These reports, of course, came before the federal government and a compliant national media could combine to massage the data, change the number of explosions to one, change its position to out in the street and change the bomb's components to non-existent ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO).
Gov. Frank Keating, a former FBI agent and high-ranking BATF official before his 1994 election to the state's highest office, went on TV to say, "Obviously, whatever did the damage to the Murrah Building was a tremendous, a very sophisticated explosive device."
"It had to have been done by an explosives expert," said government officials.
During these news reports in the first few hours, we also saw hundreds of people fleeing down the street away from the Murrah Building when the FBI had announced the necessity of clearing the area because of the danger of the second and third devices being accidentally detonated during removal. Actually, it was a ploy to remove file cabinets and surveillance tapes with fewer witnesses.
By 2 o'clock, newsmen were singing a different tune, because Mayor Ron Norick had just told them that it was "a car bomb loaded with 1,200 pounds of ANFO, and we have confirmed that with the BATF."
The reported 1,200 pounds would then begin to increase to 2,000, 3,000 and finally 4,800 pounds, by the next day—the amount necessary to meet the area's damage.
However, this also required that the transporting vehicle be expanded to a "truck" because a car could not have handled the required load.
It was a total fabrication, as future tests and examinations showed no evidence whatsoever of any ANFO in the blast area. ANFO has two distinguishing characteristics following its detonation: lingering nitrate gas and flames.
Neither was present at the Murrah Building following the blasts. The only visible flames were the gasoline fires from the cars in the parking lot, and rescue workers were on the scene immediately without gas masks.
Before the case was three days old, the FBI didn't want to hear any information that did not pertain to their two designated patsies: Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
County K-9 Deputy Don Browning was on the scene in the early minutes and was soon subjected to intentional disinformation, as later admitted to him by an FBI agent. He was told that "the Middle Easterners seen beating a hasty retreat from the scene in two cars and a yellow pickup truck" was a story made up to "confuse the news media."
"Problem was, it confused the rest of law enforcement, too," says Browning. He had also witnessed the FBI agents removing the surveillance cameras and tapes from their mounts. These were the tapes that the FBI denied even existed for more than 14 years before finally surrendering them last month, but only with doctored results.
"I got angry all over again last week," Browning told AFP, "when they quit lying about the existence of those tapes and produced them."
Oklahoma rancher Hoppy Heidelberg was on the federal grand jury and saw first-hand the railroading of the two patsies. When he complained and tried to investigate, as a grand juror should, he was kicked out and sent home by Judge David Russell. He was later delivered a surreptitious message telling him that "if I didn't sue, they would let me live."
An Oklahoma City police sergeant wasn't so lucky. He was murdered the following year because he would not relent in his pursuit for truth. Stabbed 13 times and shot through the head, Terry Yeakey's death in a rural cow pasture was ruled a suicide.
When Yeakey's body was discovered, 40 uniformed officers combed the area for an hour in a search for the gun, without success. However, when FBI Special Agent in Charge Bob Ricks arrived by helicopter, it took him less than five minutes to "discover" a revolver in the grass near the body.
The official OKC bombing story has never been anything but a cover-up, and the FBI has been the chief architect of the cover-up from the beginning.
Pat Shannan is a contributing editor to American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan's experiences with Tupper Saussy when the American dissident was on the run in the 1980s. Both are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS for $25 each.
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|
As NATO struggles to keep its members committed to the war in Afghanistan, China has called for the U.S. and its allies to declare an end to the war and withdraw.
China's first public comments on the conflict were made in an article in China Daily, the government-run newspaper. The author was Li Quinggong, deputy general of the country's National Security Policy Studies. He described the Afghan conflict as the "anti-terror war begun by President Bush in 2001" and said it had been "the source of ceaseless turbulence and violence."
He suggested that if NATO were to withdraw it could be replaced by an international peacekeeping force to help the Afghan government and its security forces "exercise effective control over domestic unrest and maintain peace and security."
He also called on the wider international community to add its voice to what he referred to as "ever mounting anti-war calls in the U.S." He suggested anti-war sentiment could be exploited to pressure on the Obama White House to end the war. In addition, the UN Security Council could discuss the matter and see if a roadmap could be developed to bring an end to the conflict.
One of the major points raised in the China Daily piece was "the ticklish issue" of whether NATO could accept the Taliban as a "key player" in a "reconciliation process" and whether it could agree on how to "dispose of al Qaeda's armed forces."
From the tone of the article it was clear China's leaders believed dialogue with the Taliban was a key ingredient in any effort to stop the violence, a point often made by the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai.
"The Taliban and the country's major warlords are all key actors who can play an influential role in deciding the country's prospect," the article stressed.
In essence, the basic thesis of the article was that chaos in Afghanistan was linked to "long-standing domestic strife between factions" and the fact that the country had experienced numerous wars and conflicts, including the Soviet invasion. All of that was compounded by the ongoing "chaotic battle" involving U.S.-led coalition forces, Afghan government troops, domestic warlords, and the Taliban and al Qaeda.
"The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people," the article concluded.
For China to encourage an international anti-war movement to put pressure on the Obama White House implied the Chinese were not only concerned about an expanded NATO presence in Central Asia but were also worried by growing unrest among Islamic elements within their own population. The Beijing leadership has reckoned for some time that the longer the war in Afghanistan continues the greater is the likelihood of a spill-over of Islamic militancy into parts of China. Interestingly, the article offered no suggestions on how to "dispose" of al Qaeda and its surrogates and carefully avoided any reference to U.S.-Pakistan or U.S.- India relations.
For China to speak out in this way confirms that its leaders have been aware of the growing war stresses within NATO and NATO countries. Behind the scenes in Brussels, NATO has had great difficulty maintaining a unity of purpose among its members, many of whom disagree on strategy, with some refusing to send troops to the frontlines. NATO leaders are witnessing growing opposition to the war across Europe and in some member states politicians are coming under pressure to call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and to deny NATO reinforcements.
On the battlefield, the military campaign NATO thought would display its strengths has only served to expose its weaknesses. The brunt of the fighting is being done by the U.S. and Britain with other member nations refusing to put their troops in harm's way, insisting they not be deployed to combat zones. The cracks in the alliance, which is now in its 60th year, emerged as the Taliban showed itself to be a lethal adversary and the prospect of defeat became accepted wisdom in some circles.
There is now a real risk that NATO will be bogged down the way the Soviets were when they faced the same Afghan tribesmen. That fear is gradually invading the corridors of power in many NATO capitals.
In April 2008, the Obama White House privately believed the new president would get the support he needed from all NATO member states. That was a naïve assumption exposed by NATO that same month when several alliance members made it clear they did not have the political will or public backing to provide reinforcements.
Furthermore, states like Germany told White House advisors they did not want their combat troops involved in volatile zones like Helmand Province. In Britain, Washington's key ally, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has been busy fighting a political rearguard action to maintain troop levels. Recently, reports surfaced that he denied his generals extra combat troops. Next year, Canada will pull its troops out and Italy may follow suit, if not before then.
While the political pressure in Brussels increases there is a growing recognition elsewhere that NATO misjudged the problems it faced on the battlefield. And Obama, who made the Afghan crisis a major issue in his pre-election campaign, had no grasp of Afghan history when he insisted he had the solution. Like so many before him, he made the mistake of believing the more troops and military hardware thrown at the Afghan conflict the greater the prospect of success. The British, the Russians and even Alexander the Great learned that military adventurism in Afghanistan always leads to failure.
NATO is facing yet another major problem as Russia makes it clear it prefers to have a positive relationship with the West. Since NATO grew out of a Cold War doctrine in 1949, it might find little to bolster its continued existence with no bogeyman in Moscow. For the West, the real threats, economically and militarily, may soon come from China.
A report in the Independent newspaper in London on Oct. 6, 2009, claimed that China was planning for an economic war with the U.S. that might result in military confrontations over oil. The Independent claimed it had proof that Arab oil states have held secret meetings with finance ministers from China, Russia, Japan, France and Brazil to discuss ending the primary role of the dollar in oil trading, replacing it with gold, the yen or the euro, or a combination of currencies.
China has taken a great interest in Middle East oil in recent years and now imports 60 percent of its crude oil from the region. It has invested heavily in oil exploration in Iran, Iraq, Sudan and many African nations like Nigeria.
As it continues to build its oil and energy links to Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, it may seek to overpower U.S. influence in those parts of the globe as a means to creating a new world order with China at its pinnacle.
What many observers have failed to recognize is that China has been flooding the Middle East with its exports, thereby partially fueling its massive industrial infrastructure.
Without increasing oil supplies at a level never reached by the U.S., China's march to superpower status would grind to a stop.
Privately, China worries that because it has to ship most of its oil by tankers, its supply chain could be highly vulnerable in the event of a military confrontation with the U.S. In such a scenario the U.S. Navy could close down the majority of China's fuel supplies. The impact would not only damage its economy but also its military readiness.
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|
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is once again claiming the Trans-Texas corrdor, a supper-tollway designed for maximum deliveries of goreign goods on big trucks and trains aboard the "NAFTA express" is deceased.
Both critic Terri Hall of Texans United for Reform and Freedom
(TURF), whose meetings and film-showings have been covered by
AFP
for obtaining first-hand
information, believes this is more double-talk from a Republican
governor who wants to avoid sticky issues, partly because he
is getting the jitters from a challenge for his seat by U.S.
Sen. Kay bailey Hutchison (R-Tex).
The Interstate-35 leg of the TTC, according to an Oct. 6 report in the Austin American-Statesman That quotes Perry, has died. But Hall and colleagues at TURF and the related San Antonio Toll Party group see this as a slight-lf-hand to divert attention from the other more-easterly TTC route, TTC-69, that involves enlarging existing highways, whereas TTC-35 apparently would have involved more new pavement on new rights-of-way.
This AFP reporter noted in recent travels that the TTC-69 general route, that shadows Highway 77 from the Rio Grande Valley and Highway 59 through Houston toward Texarkana, has numerous spots where the highway is being widened (occasional signs along the way say "69: future interstate corridor"). The construction north of Houston, both the completed projects and the ones still in progress, is creating an ever widening Highway 59. There is lots of new bridge work, too, not all of this is necessarily part of the TTC.
But Mrs. Hutchison's challenge may not be the only reason Perry is announcing a TTC-35 funeral but not talking about TTC-69.
"There's never been grassroots support for his hefty toll tax increases nor for the Trans Texas Corridor. The real reason Perry's highway department, the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT), put the nail in the coffin of TTC-35 was because it was under the threat of a federal laws by a local government commission, the Eastern-Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission which was formed to stop TTC-35 dead in its tracks," Hall noted in an Examiner.com piece, linked to a news bulletin sent to AFP.
AFP learned of such regional planning bodies in July 2008 at the Freedom 21 conference near Dallas. Such bodies can be formed by a town or group of towns. They have considerable grassroots clout under Texas law.
"There's nothing that puts more fear in a politician up for re-election than a messy, well-publicized federal lawsuit against one of his most controversial, polarizing policies. So rather than risk certain death at the polls, Perry opted for the death of his beloved special interest TTC-35. Of course, the Texas Farm Bureau's endorsement of ... Hutchison for governor played a role in the timing of the announcement," Hall said. "To demonstrate the point that Texas isn't safe from Perry's policies untol he's kicked out of office, the Trans Texas Corridor plan No. 2 (TTC69/I-69) in the hands of Spanish Company ACS, is still on the table."
"Officials said that project (69), which unlike the I-35
plan would mainly involve expanding existing highways, remains
alive," according to the Oct. 6 Austin American-Statesman.
|Top|
Legislation introduced into the House has civil liberties groups worried that Congress is quietly erecting federal laws along with the physical infrastructure for the purpose of creating citizen detention camps in the country.
The bill, called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (H.R. 645), was introduced earlier this year by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and has three cosponsors. It is currently being vetted in the House subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
The program, which is expected to cost $360 billion, explicitly directs "the secretary of homeland security to establish national emergency centers on military installations, "serving" as the first step in the legislative process for the authorization to open and declare what these facilities can be used for and preparations for future use."
More shocking still is language in the bill mandating that these facilities will be used to "train local law enforcement, as well as "Clergy and social workers," during major crises and that they will be set up for "long-term stays."
Obviously, the concern is that, once these "emergency centers" have been constructed on military installations, they will be used by states to round up and imprison citizens, who refuse vaccinations against the flu or protest government rights grabs during contrived emergency situations.
Iowa and Florid are two states that were recently exposed
for instituting official policies which allow their law enforcement
to carry out mandatory quarantines, jailings and even forced
treatments in the event of outbreaks of illnesses. These programs
have been administered as part of a national effort coordinated
by the federal Centers for Disease Control.
|Top|
Much has been made by the new administration of the idea of national service and volunteerism. While service to one's community is certainly admirable, it is not the federal governments place to "encourage" or promote volunteerism. Moreover, there are troubling signs that national service could transition from voluntary to mandatory, or de facto mandatory, such as the requirement of service in order to be granted a diploma, or something along those lines.
Involuntary servitude was supposed to be abolished by the 13th Amendment, but things like Selective Service and the income tax make me wonder how serious we really are in defending just basic freedom. The income tax enslaves workers for nearly four months out of a year by garnishing what amounts to all their wages in that period of time. A military draft could demand your very life, without your consent. This should be unthinkable in a free society.
Proponents of reinstating the draft claim it is needed to protect liberty from enemies abroad. But what about the enemies of liberty right here at home? I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10-mile radius of y office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe. If we would get our troops off of foreign soil, those perceived enemies of our liberty abroad are much more likely to stand down and let us be. We have more than enough troops to mind our own business and defend our selves. It is only for world domination that we have a troop shortage.
Nevertheless, some think recruiting for our military is too low and that the younger generation will not answer the call of duty willingly, and must be drafted by force. I take extreme exception to this characterization of young people today. First of all, I believe they correctly see that foreign policy, as unpopular as it has been under Bush, is not significantly changing under Obama, and has little, if anything, to do with defending the United States, and certainly not the Constitution. Second, many see friends and acquaintances who have voluntarily enlisted, and have taken not of how the soldier, the veteran, is treated. Perhaps rather than blaming younger generations for being selfish, older generations should remember their promises to those who volunteer for military service and be mindful of how they are treated. Every homeless vet by the side of the road, every suicide, every report of substandard conditions in veteran hospitals is a sign of how we let our military down. Perhaps we should look to those issues if we have problems with military recruitment, rather than to trample freedom in the name of protecting it.
If that is not enough reason, consider that mst in the military
are against a draft. There is a vast difference between serving
alongside another volunteer, and serving alongside a reluctant
conscript. Americans need to be on the lookout for any propaganda
trying to ease us back into the draft. Too often a flawed foreign
policy prompts the need for a draft. Abolishing the Selective
service is one thing we could do to counter those efforts.
|Top|
Since his release from prison, former Rep. Jim Traficant has been pursued by the national media and has already given five interviews on major networks.
He has been on Fox with Greta Van Susteren and again on The Sean Hannity Show. MSNBC's Chris Mathews and CNN's Wolf Blitzer have interviewed him on primetime TV.
Everyone wants to know what his plans are, what's on his mind and why he was imprisoned on trumped-up charges.
He has been the only voice on national TV telling the truth about the America Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) stranglehold on the government in both foreign and domestic policy.
He criticizes the IRS, the Justice Department and the corrupt media for railroading him. Traficant pulls no punches in speaking out against the useless and immoral wars we are entangled in, the illegal immigration issue, NAFTA, trade deficits and the bankrupting of our economy.
He says we are about to implode as a country unless some drastic changes happen immediately. The problem with the major networks has been that their owners don't allow him to expound on these issues because it makes them nervous. They want the ratings that his dynamic personality attracts, but they don't want listeners to hear his message.
They call him a "crook" and an "anti-Semite" in desperate efforts to defame his character. They interrupt him, they delete extensive parts of his interviews, and in general do all they can to stifle and water down his message.
The print media, such as The Washington Post and others, spend more ink talking about his felony charges and his hair than they do about his message.
That is why he has refused to give an interview to a single newspaper across the country, even though his phone has been ringing off the hook with their pleas.
During his 17 years as a congressman, Traficant "always read the old Spotlight" and has "always read AMERICAN FREE PRESS." He has been one of the few congressmen to speak up on the House floor about the issues that no one else has the "anatomy" to address.
The only newspaper that he has agreed to give an interview to is AMERICAN FREE PRESS. Next week, AFP will be featuring the exclusive interview that the ex-congressman granted us.
For almost an hour and a half, Jim Traficant lays it all on the line for our readers:
* His experience in prison;
* His anger at those who criminally set him up;
* His views on the political scene as he sees it seven years
later;
* His criticism of AIPAC and its stranglehold of our foreign
policy, and its control of the House and Senate;
* His warnings of Barrack Obama's financial bankrupting of our
country;
* America's endless wars in the Middle East;
* The danger of the emerging Chinese superpower;
* His plans for the future and much more.
We also hope to have this interview on our website located at www.AmericanFreePress.net as soon as possible.
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 Supreme Court will huddle on October 19 to consider whether to hear the appeal of a strong tax rebel who argues that the federal income tax is unconstitutional on numerous grounds. It is believed to be the first time that a classic tax rebel's case has gone so far.
The justices met privately, which is routine, to decide whether to hear the case of Thomas T. Scambos, Jr. v. U.S. Department of Justice on October 19. Their decision has not yet been made public. If Scambos prevails, it will be the first time the high court has heard open arguments from a classic tax rebel. It will be a dramatic moment in history that the mainstream media will be compelled to cover.
It requires the approval of four justices for the case to be heard. A possible vote for approval is Justice Clarence Thomas, who also has called for hearing challenges to President Obama's constitutional qualifications for office on grounds he was born in Africa, not Hawaii. The fearful court refused to accept that challenge. If the other self-proclaimed "conservatives" vote according to the views they voice, the case will be heard.
They are: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. Scambos has petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which asks the high court to take his case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and directly hear his appeal.
Of his numerous challenges to lower court dismissals of cases by tax rebels, Scambos attacked the rejection of constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelling a citizen to be a "witness against himself." Courts have long agreed that this includes surrendering personal documents.
In 1886, his petition says, "the question of Fifth Amendment protection for the books, records and personal documents of a witness who may be implicated in a crime was first considered in Boyd v. United States, where the Supreme Court expanded Fifth Amendment protection against compulsory testimony to include the books and records of the witness."
The court said: "Any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of a crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of a despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom."
The court further said: "And we are further of the opinion that a compulsory production of the private books and papers of the owner of goods sought to be forfeited in such a suit is compelling him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. It is the equivalent of a search and seizure—and an unreasonable search and seizure— within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
AFP correspondent James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media in Washington. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos—the book recounts Tucker's experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Although not highly publicized, according to Robert Livingstone—an expert on the Olympic bid selection process—Chicago's political machine ponied up $100 million to be considered for the 2016 Games. This wasn't taxpayer money, but came directly from private sources that sought riches in the future.
To put this matter into perspective, the Chicago Stewardship Report reveals there were 29 million dollar donors, 29 half-million-dollar donors, and 120-plus who kicked in $100,000. Needless to say, the Chicago political mob had plenty invested in landing the Summer Games. Kenneth Vogel of the Associated Press estimated that Chicago "could see $22.5 billion of economic development and thousands of jobs from the Games."
In addition, one can't exclude the graft, corruption, kickbacks, cost overruns, and overpriced union labor that could have spiraled into the billions. Or, as Olympic historian David Wallechinsky quipped, "If they're going to add a new sport for the Chicago Olympics, corruption would be a great one—they're really good at that."
The Chicago machine wanted this event so desperately that they dispatched President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle, Oprah Winfrey, fixer Valerie Jarrett, Mayor Richard Daley, plus former gold medalists such as Nadia Comaneci, Bart Connor, Edwin Moses, and basketball legend David Robinson.
But even all this star power couldn't secure the highly cherished prize. International Olympic Committee (IOC) panelists eliminated Chicago in the first round, and as such, billions slipped through their fingers.
Did Barack Obama's own philosophy of social redistribution backfire on him and his cronies? After all, didn't he tell Joe the Plumber during the 2008 presidential campaign that we need to "spread the wealth around"? Well, the IOC selection panel took from those who've played host plenty of times in the past (the U.S.) and gave to those who've been less fortunate (South America). Somehow, it seems poetically just that Obama & Company had to finally drink from a cup of their own making.
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
This American Free Press reporter's September assignment to Manhattan for 9-11 coverage yielded a considerable array of information - including the 9-11 ballot initiative which has the goal of asking city voters to decide if they want a new investigation into the tragic 9-11-01 events. However, the proposal was seen by the city clerk's office, its Law Department and a state judge as having too many legal shortcomings to place it on the Nov. 3, 2009 ballot.
The activist group New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, or NYC CAN, that is behind the current ballot proposal, initially gathered 26,003 valid signatures, almst 4,000 short of what was needed, according to a July 24 letter from City Clerk Michael McSweeney. That letter also contained some legal objections, including the claim: "First, the federal government has jurisdiction" regarding a 9-11 investigation. He added: "Establishing a local commission to conduct such an investigation far exceeds the proper scope and purpose of the petition process of the MHRL (Municipal Home Rule Law)."
NYC CAN then gathered considerably more than the required minimum of 30,000 signatures of registered city on petitions for amending the Municipal Home Rule Law to create what NYC CAN and the city both refer to as a "independent" commission to issue indictments and subpoena witnesses in a new investigation that many city activists and others in New York and across the nation strongly desire.
But Deputy Communications Director Connie Pankratz of the city's Law Department told AFP that the validity of the signatures was not the central issue. There are several other problems, she noted.
Asked about the "independent" commission that would be created if this 9-11 ballot question was put before voters and approved - specifically, whether the commission could actually subpoena witnesses and issue indictments - she replied: "If an independent body wanted to achieve these powers, as a matter of law, the members wold have to be public officers (i.e., someone who is either elected or appointed to the office). NYC CAN's proposal violates the constitutional requirements for the selection of public officers....
"We did not contest the validity of the signatures because we did not believe that it was the most efficient use of limited court resources to conduct a line-by-line review of the signatures given that the legal deficiencies in the petition were os such magnitude that it would render the petition null," she said in an exclusive AFP interview.
An NYC CAN online news bulletin, referring to the letter mentioned above, notes: "In an earlier letter from the city clerk dated July 24 ... the city had claimed only 26,003 signatures were valid, 3,997 short of the requisite 30,000. The city's subsequent concession that over 30,000 of the 52,000 signatures submitted were in fact valid paves the way for lawyers from both sides to argue legality of the petition.
NYC CAN arguments were put forth in legal papers, with support from a 631-page "bill of particulars." But it appeared as of October 14 that such detailed arguments were not enough to convince public officials to approve the ballot proposal.
Asked whether this ballot initiative is dead or not, Pankratz replied on October 13: "Not necessarily. NYC CAN can appeal this decision. As a matter of law, it would receive expedited review." An appeal was expected.
Moreover, a decision by a "referee" for the court - recommending denial of the ballot proposal - was upheld in an October 8 ruling by State Supreme Court Judge Edward Lehner.
In Lehner's brief ruling obtained by AFP, he concluded: "Upon review of the papers submitted, the court finds that the well-researched and reasoned report of the referee should be confirmed as it correctly shows the legal infirmities in the petition. While petitioners' counsel argues that the severability provision of paragraph 20 of the petition allows the court to strike any provisions thereof that are unconstitutional or invalid, the extent of the impropriety of the proposal, as correctly set forth by the referee, would result in a substantial evisceration of the petition and, even if legally permissible, would be inappropriate as inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories to the petition. Accordingly, the motion of respondents to confirm the report of the referee is granted and this proceeding is dismissed."
In other words, "The judge is saying that if the invalid provisions were stripped, what remains wold be vastly different from the main argument in the original proposal (i.e., he's referring to the strength, or lack thereof, of the proposal and not the commission)." Pankratz explained to American Free Press.
A new 9-11 probe has been sought in light of many activists' long-held view that the original 9-11 commission that wasreluctantly created by the Bush administration was designed to fail. And, beyond that commission's official report, a new book written by top commission members Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean (a pair of Council on Foreign Relations "bookends") that claims the 9-11 truth activists who believe that this "confessional" by the CFR boys is really just a cover up for their own stonewalling.
NYC CAN responded to the judge's ruling in an October 9 news
release: "Justice Edward Lehne ... rubber stamped Referee
Louis Drespo's recommendation that the decision to establish
a local commission to investigate the events of September 11
not be put before the voters on November 3. After showing interest
in weighing both sides' arguments in the hearing, the judge's
short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments
put forth in the petitioners' memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgment
of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York
callously dismissed as ‘irrelevant." On a dark day
for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by humdreds of
9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled,
and the will of the people of New York City once again denied."
|Top|
In early may of 1995, the FBI contacted a professional video
service company in Oklahoma city to acquire duplication of surveillance
tapes, confiscated from hundreds
of business locations from miles around the downtown area on
the day of the explosions.
Charles Rose, proprietor of Legend Video Services, has spoken to private investigators and survivors of the April 19, 1995 tragedy about the business deal that had him under a gag order until 2002. When videographer Chris Emery came to his shop in 2006 to place an order for copies of his new documentary on the murder of OKC Police Sergeant Terry Yeakey, Rose remarked about the irony of the situation in that he had just come across a copy of the 1995 billing a few days before, and he began to tell Emery the details.
Rose said that he had no idea that the initial visit had anything to do with the bombing when he was first approached by two female agents who inquired about his pricing, left with a quote and said that they would "shop it around" and let him know.
They returned the next day with an offer to pay him triple his bid rate, but he would have to close down his shop to the bublic and give the FBI exclusivity until the job was completed. He also would have to sign a seven-year non=disclosure agreement. Rose said that he readily agreed and that the job tied him up for the whole month, "but I had the biggest profit month ever."
Emery, a longtime student of the crime and part-time researcher, was so intrigued with the story that he first gave Rose a copy of "The Final Report" and then came back the following week for another chat, this time with interested friend V.Z. Lawton, a retired HUD employee who had survived the blast. Later, he made a third trip with Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key to learn even more details. Rose was unafraid to speak freely at the time because the seven-year gag order he had been under had long since passed.
At that time, Rose elaborated with more detail and said that he worked five days a week and sometimes six on the project, always under the close scrutiny of the two female agents. Each time he went out to lunch or even to the rest room, he was frisked and patted down by the agents, as they had an apparent fear that he would abscond with some of the evidence. He said he did not ever see anything on the tapes that might have been pertinent to either the prosecution or the defense, as far as the trial was concerned, because the agents were careful not to let him spend much time with his 10-tape VHS duplicator monitors, except for the occasional spot check to see that everything was working properly. Besides, watching surveillance tapes is about as exciting as watching paint dry, especially when one does not know to look for anything in particular, such as a Ryder truck exploding (or not exploding) in front of the Murrah Building.
Rose did say that at one glance he saw the most grotesque scene ever in his life - a man's face blown totally off the front of his head and sent flying into a concrete wall.
Each day's allocation of tapes was delivered in a panel truck,
itemized and checked off the sheet both coming in and going out
of Rose's office. The final count was 535 that were copied once,
of which 118 were deemed to be of a more important category and
copied.
|Top|
We all Knew it was coming, Washington is bankrupt, and, despite
claims made by Democrats that working-class families would not
be hit
with new taxes, Congress has
no other option but to send out its revenuers to shake down hardworking
Americans for more money.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Dropped a bombshell during a recent interview with a television talk show when she said that a value-added tax (VAT) is "on the table."
A VAT is a complicated levy that is placed on manufacturers at each stage of production. In essence, it taxes the amount of value that each processing step adds to a product. It is commonly done throughout the world, but has yet to be instituted in the United States. In the European Union, for example, the VAT is a shopping 23 percent. In China, it is 17 percent.
Mrs. Pelosi contends that this is not a tax on the American people, saying that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes for the middle class. But she's dead wrong here. Manufacturers will pay the tax directly to government revenuers, but they are going to pass that added cost on to consumers by increasing their prices. In effect, hardworking Americans will be hit with the tax indirectly by having to pay more for the products they buy.
Mrs. Pelosi is not the first wealthy beltway insider to propose a VAT to pay Washington's ballooning spending. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, White House advisor John Podesta and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) have all expressed support for a VAT, which they believe could rake in as much as a half trillion yearly from Main Street.
Congress needs more money to pay for Wall Street bailouts, to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to fund the Democrats' proposed healthcare plan. But with a $4 trillion budget, a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, and a healthcare plan that is expected to cost $1 trillion, Mrs. Pelosi knows that there is no way to cover all of Washington's bills.
Congress is expected to raise the legal amount it can borrow, called the debt ceiling, to over $12 trillion any day now, but that will only keep the federal government operating at its current level. In addition, it's becoming increasingly difficult to borrow money from foreigners, who are growing increasingly concerned about Washington's ability to pay back its loans.
If you put it all together, the only way to keep funding the
wars and propping up Wall Street is to raise taxes or stop the
wars.
|Top|
An interesting solution to the problems of high costs of medical care and looming disasters for Medicare as the baby boomers retire has been offered by the Life /extension Foundation: Prevention, competition and responsibility.
They note that an estimated 20 percent of every Medicare dollar goes to pay those who submit inflated or bogus claims - such as $100 million for equipment and drugs prescribed by dead doctors. Another 20 percent, according to the foundation, is "paid out in the form of overpayments to those with political connections." For example: our laws prevent Medicare from buying $600 oxygen generators for patients, requiring that they be rented instead. A 36-month rental costs $7,142, of which Medicare pays 45,714 and the patient $1,428.
Furthermore the Medicare Prescription Drug Act requires Medicare to pay retail drug prices for drugs that could be obtained for far less under competitive bidding - which is forbidden by the act. Considering that insurance company administrative cost probably add another 15 percent, Americans might be able to at least halve their medical expenses by paying their own bills - which most people used to do before World War II.
Incidentally the foundation identifies widespread vitamin D-3 deficiencies with high medical costs. They offered to supply 50,000 free vitamin D-3 pills to be given to Medicare patients but received no response. There is no constituency for saving money in the federal government - only for spending it.
The Life Extension Foundation fails to address the root cause of high medical costs - the well heeled politically powerful medical monopoly. Entrenched through laws passed in the early days of the last century, it continues to be reinforced with new laws such as those eliminating the liability of vaccine manufacturers for damages to the public. It controls both medical education andthe practice of medicine. Since its inception, this monopoly has suppressed advancements in medical science, which promised to lower costs. It continues to do so today. Alternative medical practitioners in the State of Washington have their practices shut down as FDA agents confiscate equipment and records. Insurance companies effectively limit alternatives to conventional therapy by refusing to pay for them. Even worse, it keeps thousands of mentally ill Americans, capable of becoming normal taxpayers, enslaved to psychoative drugs. Abram Hoffer, PhD. M.D., the father of orthomolecular medicine and a colleague of Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, helped prove that 75 percent of schizophrenic patients were curable with the first double-blind study in psychiatric history. He cured over 5,000 of them himself. It is deplorable that, in America, only 10 percent are being cured now. Most are simply drugged and allowed to deteriorate as they provide between $2 million and $4 million each in revenue over an average 40-year lifespan. Billions of dollars of healthcare expense could be saved by turning them back into taxpayers. Maintaining them in jail cells cost the State of Florida $250 million in 2007, plus another $72 million to build more jail cells for them. It undoubtedly cost the State of New York much more to maintain them in flop houses.
A hundred years of the medical monopoly is enough. We need
freedom of choice in medical care that George Washington's surgeon
general believed should have been included in our Constitution.
Grassroots Americans gained such freedom in the 1950s when they
forced the repeal of licensing laws after the failure of establishment
medicine during the cholera epidemics of the1830s. But they lost
it again in the early 1900s when, with drug company help and
the promise of "scientific medicine," the medical establishment
regained control. What Americans did in the 1850s should be done
again.
|Top|
Popular internet medical doctors are not only warning that the HINI sw ne flu vaccine is worse than the illness itself (because of the everlasting ill effects), but now Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is publicly screaming that the new and convenient FluMist spray is even worse than the shot.
For months Joseph Mercola, Russell Blaylock, W.C. Douglas and many other lesser known physicians have said over and over, "Don't take it."
Dr. Tenpenny says, "MedImmune, the manufacturer of FluMist, recently announced that it signed an agreement that makes FluMist, the new intranasal vaccine, readily available to people as they shop at Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer." She reports that hyndreds of TV and print advertisements have been designed to persuade everyone to take the FluMist plunge. The campaign will be the "most intense, direct-to-consumer marketing campaign ever waged for a vaccine," costing an estimated $25 million over the next 2.5 months. In addition, Wyeth, MedImmune's partner, plans a three-year, $100 million campaign to encourage use of the nasal flu vaccine among physicians.
The television arm of the blitz campaign will focus on the "inconveniences" that your family, friends and coworkers will endure if you don't get the shot and subsequently contract the flu. Print advertisements and magazine articles apparently will use scare tactics similar to those that were used while promoting the smallpox vaccine, which earned of the high possibility of a "bioterror attack using the flu virus."
Apparently, the goal seems to center around frightening -
or inducing enough guilt - that everone would begin to demand
the vaccine as soon as it is available. And at nearly $70 a dose,
this will be a financial bonanza for MedImmune and Wyeth.
|Top|
There has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.
The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many mmore troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000 in addition to that? Why not 500,000 - just to be "safe"? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58 percent are now against it?
I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example: Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We've invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives - for what?
The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalation the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.
Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.
The real question is why are we there at all? What do our
efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the
use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone
involved in the attacks of 9-11. At this point we are only strengthening
the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left
to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will
not even be able to do that.
|Top|
While we often ponder the structures and powers of the bilderberg Group, the Council on foreign Relations (CFR) and other centers of illicit influence on our foreign policy and other government operations, sometimes we overlook grassroots tyranny.
This reporter can attest to the under-told story of how local governments, by and large, can be so heavy-handed and unfair that usually there is little point in appealing to them for relief from the abuses that rain down from above. And you would be surprised at the public-private connections from the very top levels to the bottom levels of government.
Combing through my reporter notes jotted down over the last 25 years reminds me of many Michigan episodes - from the Bridgman School Board that pressured its only honest member to back down on important financial reviews - along with a threatened fistfight from another board member toward this reporter for supporting the good board member editorially - to watching a retired man's rural, repairable home get bulldozed by the Three Oaks Township Board for not being in picture-perfect compliance with the junkyard ordinance and the building code, the unsettling reality is that dealing with officials who are both local and elected does not guarantee much, if anything.
This writer asked Jim Zahl, whose home was bulldozed, why local officials do such things. His terse reply: "Because they can."
And it's tough to forget the local, elected officials who made the decision in 2004 to toss an elderly man into the streets in the winter in Allegan County, Mich., because of some litter and scrap around his mobile home - a home they literally dragged off the land.
Had the men in the last two episodes lived in Amish areas, the Amish would have brought them food, hot coffee, building materials and labor crews to repair, rebuild and clean everything. In their undying spiritu of self-government, love for neighbor and practical skilled, the Amish are unsurpassed in a grassroots economic self-sufficiency that local governments do not provide or encourage, as a general rule.
One of today's great ironies is that you cold have the most honest election system in the world and still get tyranny. Indeed, Americans have full global bragging rights to declare, "America, where we ELECT our slavemasters!" (Maybe that should go on a T-shirt). Most Americans seem to miss the fact that voting within a system in which ballot access laws keep a wider array of candidates and their useful ideas off the ballot and therefore out of public office is nothing more than a certification of slavery. The tyrants want your money AND your vote. Wouldn't it be honest to just dispense with elections and have a more open form of "ruler-ship"?
Well, lest frustrated Americans begin catching on - what with all these tea parties and other outward signs of a restless peasantry - here come the think tanks which have an uncanny way of showing up to misdirect the public. Case in point: In June, rural Lake Charter Township Hall in southwest Michigan was the scene of a meeting by Americans for Prosperity, yet another organization devoted to our rescue.
It did not take long to see the big picture. While the high cost of a proposed new public safety building across the street was the announced purpose of this meeting, organizational leaders, when questioned by AFP upon adjournment, revealed their pro-NAFTA stance. Thus, in our midst at the town hall were free traders who want "free Markets" to prevail. A forever-Republican, former state legislator, Jack Hoogendyk moderated the meeting and assured the 30 people there that Americans for Prosperity was there to help yet another community seriously wounded by the North American Free Trade Agreement that his organization generally supports without apology.
Well, July 4 rolled around and this reporter covered a Kalamazoo tea party. Lo and behold, there was Hoogendyk who like many Americans for Prosperity spokesmen at tea parties held across the U.S., talked as if his organization and the Republican Party were a wellspring of most answers to most problems.
A quick check of Americans for Prosperity shows that it not only has state and local affiliates but a national office in Washington. Interestingly, the organization's headquarters at 1726 M Street NW is less than a mile from the CFR's new Washington office at 1777 F Street NW and less than two miles from the World Bank. That may not mean much by itself, but the organization's foundation has welcomed neo-con-artist Newt Gingrich (CFR) to share his counterfeit-conservative "American dream" speeches. The group's overall message is glazed with tiresome references to the golden "Ronald Reagan" era, which, while preferable to the current economic prison, was a period of ballooning debts owed to the bankers, our real sovereigns.
Consider that books were written long ago (such as Blame
Metro by Jo Hindman) that showed linkages between the CFR
and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The
ACIR infused globalist ideas deep into America's affairs, down
to the local level. The Hindman book showed that internationalized
building codes, urban renewal and tons of zoning and tax schemes
were hatched out of the Rockefeller-funded University of chicago
and other "higher institutions of learning." Thus,
it becomes rather clear that local government may not exactly
be local.
|Top|