September 7, 2009
- Watergate, Effort to Kill Ford Part of Rockefeller Plot?
- Mainstream Media Didn't Tell You Bob Novak Opposed Israeli Power
- Hamas Reacts Positively to Obama Plan
- Shortage of Authorized U.S. Mint Gold & Silver Coins
- Globalists Will Not Give Up on Takeover of US Roads
- Gun Bill Gives Attorney General Right to Decide Who Owns Guns
- Debate Instigated On Banning Guns Near Presdent
- Activists Get the Truth Out About Sept. 11
- Judge Rules Fed Must Release Info On $2 Trillion in Emergency Loans
- Former FBI Chief Envisions Frightening Swine Flu Scenario
September 14, 2009
- Jim Traficant Set Free
- Populist Says Healthcare Debate A Ruse to Cover Corporate Welfare
- Here's What Israel Is Really Costing American Taxpayers
- Israel's Secret War Against Iran
- Days of Federal Reserve Autonomy Over By Ron Paul
- Israel, U.S. Qualify for Membership in ‘Axis of Evil'
September 21, 2009
- No paper this week due to Labor Day Holiday
September 28, 2009
- Feds Move To Control Internet
- Traficant Lashes Out at Power of Israel
- All-New Evidence Discovered Proving Jim Traficant Was Victim of Frame-Up
- Mainstream Downplays Massive D.C. Tea Party Crowd
- Judge Says She Knows What's Best for Homeschooled Christians
- Attorney Claims Proof Obama Definitely Born in Kenya
- American Free Press Editor Schools Crowd on Bilderberg
- Understanding ‘Why We Are Where We Are' Crucial to Solution by Ron Paul
Whole Body Health
- Why Americans Should Resist Forced Vaccines
- What In A Vaccine?
- America's Drinking Water Fails Major Test
- Public Outrage Forces Makers of GM Foods to Go Underground
- CHEMOTHERAPY: Mainstream Medicine's Lethal 'Cure' to Cancer
- Global Body Can Make Vaccines Mandatory
What does the release of Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme—one of Charles Manson's most ardent devotees—from the Carswell Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Tex., on Aug. 14 have to do with a Rockefeller in the White House? This is one of the most intriguing stories in recent American political history.
On Sept. 5, 1975, "Squeaky" Fromme tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford in Sacramento. Seventeen days later, on Sept. 22, Sara Jane Moore also made an attempt on Ford's life, in San Francisco. Coincidentally, Moore had been arrested the day before this incident took place for carrying a concealed .44 caliber revolver and 113 rounds of ammo.
How could this woman that police arrested and released a day earlier get so close to the president? By her own admission, Moore acted as an FBI informant while also working for the BATF and San Francisco Police Department. Further, as an "Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)-wannabe" with a long history of involvement in radical Bay area activism, Moore managed to become a bookkeeper for William Hearst, then functioned as an intermediary between him and the SLA during the famous Patricia Hearst kidnapping.
Here's where it gets even stranger. According to eclectic researcher Adam Gorightly, author of the definitive Manson book The Shadow Over Santa Susanna, Moore's mother and Manson's mother knew each other in Charleston, W.Va, while Charlie and Sara Jane were briefly childhood friends. On the other hand, Squeaky Fromme is frequently depicted as Manson's most loyal follower.
What are the odds that two women directly connected to America's spookiest criminal would both attempt to kill the president within two weeks of each other? On top of that, Moore escaped from the Alderson, W. Va. penitentiary in 1979, while Fromme escaped from the same prison on Dec. 23, 1987. Neither woman could adequately explain why they tried to slay the president. "I never got a satisfactory answer from her [Moore] as to why she did it," attorney James F. Hewitt commented after the trial.
Because of his brief tenure as president, most people tend to forget that if Ford had been assassinated, his vice president—former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller—would have become president without ever receiving a single vote from the American public. This calculated plot began when Richard Nixon's original vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned after pleading "no contest" to charges of tax evasion. As a replacement, Nixon selected two-time Bilderberg attendee (1964, 1966), CFR insider, and Warren Commission member, Gerald Ford.
The next step in this process involved Richard Nixon's fall from grace via Watergate. Researcher Gary Allen wrote in The Rockefeller File: "As we unravel the twisting threads of this strange saga, we find that each attempt to ultimately topple Nixon from the throne can be traced to Rockefeller."
Specifically, the two biggest conspirators inside the White House were Henry Kissinger and Gen. Alexander Haig, both Rockefeller prot?g?s. Radio talk-show host Keith Hansen cites an interesting angle on his website.
"The justification for Kissinger's actions may have been [Nixon's] overt dislike for Israel and his penchant for saying so."
In The Rockefeller File, Allen augments this point. "It is now known that Henry Kissinger was responsible for creating the ‘Plumbers' squad in the first place, while the ‘instant general,' Alexander Haig, made sure that the most incriminating evidence on the tapes was given in advance to the men investigating his boss."
Rather quickly, Nixon found himself cornered, and resigned under a cloud of controversy on Aug. 8, 1974, thereby making Gerald Ford president. On August 20, 1974, Ford named Nelson Rockefeller his vice president designate.
At this stage, the White House's central power-base consisted of Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission) and Nelson Rockefeller. In an article entitled "All the President's Men," Aaron Tomek observed, "Gary Allen . . . says that they wanted to put a Rockefeller in the White House, and it was the whole purpose for crafting the elaborate scandal [Watergate] that would take Nixon out and put Ford in. Ford would be easily taken out by many possible means, including assassination."
On December 19, 1974, Rockefeller was officially appointed vice president. Nixon realized with perfect clarity that a president could be eliminated. Moreover, the Rockefeller clan felt no love for John F. Kennedy, especially since they (and the CIA) blamed him for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The Rockefellers held a significant amount of stock in United Fruit and other sugar plantations in Cuba, which Fidel Castro nationalized after rising to power.
The Rockefellers also held great disdain for Kennedy's perceived monetary changes at the Federal Reserve. New York state Sen. Walter Mahoney revealed that JFK sent federal agents to Albany to dig up dirt on Nelson Rockefeller to protect himself against this powerful family.
Attorney General Robert Kennedy ran the operation. Needless to say, Kennedy's presidency ended abruptly, and the single most crucial element in the cover-up of his assassination revolved around a concept known as "the magic bullet theory."
The Warren Commission—stacked with Rockefeller and CFR cronies—used this ludicrous notion to pin the blame solely on "lone nut shooter" Lee Harvey Oswald. The single-bullet theory arose from attorney Arlen Specter, who was requested as chief counsel for the Warren Commission by none other than Gerald Ford.
Interestingly enough, the man who selected Oswald to be their patsy was the CIA counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton. He also acted as a self-appointed "primary researcher" (i.e. gatekeeper) for the Warren Commission, thus preventing any damning information to make it before the panel. Years later, various researchers have speculated that once Richard Nixon turned on Israel, Angleton surreptitiously instigated the Watergate scandal.
Then, when Nixon requested his help in covering up the deliberately botched break-in, Angleton refused to lend any assistance, thus guaranteeing his downfall.
In a February, 2005 article for Nexus magazine entitled "Princes of Plunder," David Guyatt writes that when the Rockefeller family became involved in Project Paperclip and the Nazi ratlines to smuggle gold, currency and scientists out of Germany after World War II, they had three significant assistants: Allen Dulles (future CIA director), George Herbert Walker (George Bush Sr.'s grandfather and future CIA director), and James Jesus Angleton, who was awarded his later intelligence position.
A decade later, during Dwight Eisenhower's presidency, Nelson Rockefeller became undersecretary of health, and in this role certainly became apprised of the CIA's nefarious MK-ULTRA programs (as did CIA directors Allen Dulles and Richard Helms). This point is vitally important because all evidence now indicates Charles Manson willfully participated in a covert operation to discredit the peace-and-love generation. He played his part perfectly, with his "family" members carrying out the shocking Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969.
Where did Manson get his start on this horrifying odyssey? After being released from Terminal Island Prison in 1967, he gravitated to San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, a focal point for extensive mind-control experimentation at the time. This CIA hotbed is also the place where Sara Jane Moore embarked upon her journey into radical left-wing politics (aka SLA mind control). Similarly, Manson united with Fromme in San Francisco.
Adam Gorightly called Moore and Fromme "MK-ULTRA dupes," and half a decade later both women would try to assassinate Gerald Ford, making Nelson Rockefeller president. The saga has now come full-circle.
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|
Do you know the name of the well-known American journalist (and television personality) who once published a column suggesting there was a bigger conspiracy behind the Oklahoma City bombing, raising questions about the role of a federal undercover informant in the affair?
This same journalist often riled the Jewish lobby with his candid reportage, including evidence Israel knew the USS Liberty was an American ship when Israeli forces attacked the Liberty on June 8, 1967.
If you guessed the journalist to be Robert Novak, you were right. However, following the widely noted death on August 18 of the veteran newsman, virtually all accounts of Novak's remarkable career omit mention of those provocative facts.
On Oct. 20, 1997 Novak shocked many with a column in The Washington Post describing "grave and disturbing questions" raised by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a distinguished British journalist, who was suggesting mysterious German immigrant Andreas Strassmeir—who had been operating in "patriot" and "white separatist" circles in the United States—may have been an undercover informant moving alongside Tim McVeigh in the days preceding the Oklahoma bombing.
Novak emphasized Evans-Pritchard was "no conspiracy-theory lunatic" but instead "was known in Washington for accuracy, industry and courage" and that he had "offered leads to discovering a pattern of lies and deception after Oklahoma City that, if verified, would approach Vietnam and Watergate in undermining American citizens' confidence in their government."
In fact, Novak echoed what The Spotlight had reported earlier (and covered in further detail later) about Strassmeir and his close associate, Kirk Lyons (who later played a part in the conspiracy to destroy The Spotlight in 2001).
NOVAK WAS RIGHT
Now, years since, it is generally acknowledged among those familiar with the Oklahoma scenario that Strassmeir was an undercover informant and that the conspiracy was as insidious as Novak had suggested might be the case.
Novak was one of only a few "mainstream" journalists— including the late Sam Francis—who delved into the Strassmeir connection. And that was in keeping with Novak's dogged devotion to factual news-gathering.
Ironically, many reports of Novak's death focused on his role in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame (wife of ex-Ambassador Joe Wilson, a vehement critic of the Bush administration's war in Iraq) implying Novak supported the war when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Novak not only opposed the Iraq war (which was at the top of the list of the demands of the Israeli lobby) but many years before Novak had established a solid record—in concert with his longtime co-columnist Roland Evans—in forthrightly criticizing the Jewish lobby.
OPPOSED THE ISRAELI LOBBY
Many pro-Israel voices had angry words for Novak who, born Jewish, became a devout convert to Catholicism, a point Novak's critics brought up in an accusatory fashion.
David Frum, a Jewish speechwriter for George W. Bush, charged Novak with being among a group of what Frum dubbed "unpatriotic conservatives" who were dangers to Israel (and the United States) because they did not support the Iraq war.
Norman Podhoretz, long editor of the American Jewish Committee's magazine Commentary, went so far as to claim Novak might welcome "repeated—and worse—attacks than the one we suffered on Sept. 11."
Podhoretz was incensed Novak had dared, among other things, in a column, to quote the widely quoted stratfor.com, a private intelligence agency run by ex-CIA official George Friedman (a Jewish supporter of Israel) who reported on Sept. 11 that "the big winner today, intentionally or not, is the state of Israel."
Although, as noted, most coverage of Novak's death avoided mentioning the Jewish lobby's war against Novak, the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) greeted his death by calling Novak a "harsh critic of Israel," alleging his "distaste for robust Judaism," charging that his "attacks on the pro-Israel community repeatedly veered into the conspiratorial," rushing to note Novak "also was a rare mainstream voice" suggesting Israel's attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate. The JTA was also distressed because Novak was critical of actions by Israel he (and others) perceived as harmful to Christian Palestinians.
MADE POWERFUL ENEMIES
Novak's entertaining memoirs are often revealing, crafted in the wry fashion for which he was known. For example, Novak bared a remark by pro-Israel intriguer Richard Perle about then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that many might consider "racist" and certainly condescending: Perle told Novak that "Colin would make a good secretary of health and human services or housing and urban development. But he never should be permitted to have anything to do with national security."
You see, Washington insiders often said HHS and HUD were the "token black" cabinet posts; so Perle was suggesting Powell was out of his league dealing with national security—an amazing suggestion considering Powell had previously served as both national security advisor and as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his memoirs, Novak noted there were some who contended his long-time partner, Evans, had launched their column in collusion with pro-Arab elements in the State Department who wanted a regular public newspaper voice for their views.
In reflecting on the allegations, Novak said the Middle East issue was a major concern of Evans and that over some 21 years Evans wrote hundreds of columns "with the theme that Israeli intransigence sowed the seeds of war."
While Novak did not write any of these columns, he added: "my name appeared on every one of them, and I agreed with my partner."
Novak noted that in 1975 he lunched with an editor from The Newark Star-Ledger who told him advertisers were not happy with the "anti-Israel" columns and asked if the duo could "ease up."
Novak said he "gave an evasive answer about watching our language." Soon afterward, the Star-Ledger canceled the column, one of about 100 newspapers that did likewise during that time frame.
"Whatever the reasons—and I had my suspicions," recalled Novak, "we never built back our base."
While, Novak said, the issue was never at the top of his own priority list, after Evans's retirement Novak wrote a handful of columns about Israel that echoed Evans's views.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
AN OFFICIAL WITH HAMAS, the legitimately elected Palestinian government, said the organization would be happy to accept a preliminary peace plan that has been floated by the White House if it includes Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.
"We have an initial readiness to accept it and deal with it positively, but we will also reject it if it doesn't include an American recognition of Palestinian rights," Yousef Rizka, adviser to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, told a Chinese news agency.
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who is currently leading a congressional dog-and-pony show in Israel with 29 other Democrats, told The Jerusalem Post that he does not support ceding half of Jerusalem to Palestine even though there is a Palestinian majority that lives in that part of the city.
"My view is that it will remain whole, and therefore—I don't want to anticipate the endgame—but I don't think the partitioning of Jerusalem is a reasonable outcome," Hoyer told the Israeli press. "I don't think it will happen."
The current White House has repeatedly called on the Israeli government to rein in the rising scale of land theft in Jerusalem by Jewish extremists who are using Israeli courts to evict impoverished Palestinians from their homes in order to take over the city and declare it the capital of Israel.
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|
Unprecedented demand, a shortage of blanks and restrictive policies and regulations continue to exacerbate what is almost becoming a chronic shortage of gold and silver coins authorized by the U.S. Mint.
The Mint has again "temporarily" suspended sales of almost all of its gold uncirculated and proof coins, along with nearly all of its silver uncirculated coins because of the limited availability of blanks.
The 2009 American Buffalo one-ounce gold proof coin is to go on sale late in the second half of the 2009 calendar year after an acceptable inventory of 24-karat gold blanks can be acquired. In its catalog, the government says it will resume the American Eagle gold proof and uncirculated coin programs "once sufficient inventories of gold bullion blanks can be acquired to meet market demand for all three American Eagle gold coin products."
Congressionally authorized American Eagle bullion coins are aimed at providing investors an effective way to invest in precious metals. Prices may change on a daily basis as the platinum, gold and silver markets fluctuate. The mint does not sell the bullion coins directly to the public, but distributes them in bulk through a network of official distributors who meet government financial and professional criteria, which must be attested to by an internationally accepted accounting firm.
So far this year, the mint has sold 700,000 ounces or 700,000 gold bullion coins, compared to last year's total sales of 860,500 ounces of gold or 1,172,000 bullion coins.
Federal laws and regulations say the gold must be newly mined in the United States. Only a handful of refineries meet the standards and regulations to produce the blanks for the coins.
The product catalog states, "Currently, all available silver bullion blanks are being allocated to the American Eagle silver bullion coin program, as the United States Mint is required by Public Law 99-61 to produce these coins ‘in quantities sufficient to meet public demand."
Thus far this year, silver bullion coin sales total 14,899,500 compared to last year's total sales of 19,583,500.
While gold and silver producers have repeatedly gone to government officials to get them to authorize an increase in the number of refineries which can produce the blanks and the facilities that can mint the coins, industry sources say they feel they have been stonewalled by mint officials who refuse to budge.
Among the U.S. manufacturers of blanks are Sunshine Minting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and Stern-Leach of Attleboro, Mass. Nearly all U.S. Mint gold coins are manufactured at West Point, New York at a remote site on military academy grounds. See more at www.silverminers.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|
AFP is continually monitoring the proposed North American Union. This not only involves the dynamics surrounding the "border fence" issue; it also involves watching the efforts of "NAFTA Superhighway" profiteers to install small "piecemeal" infrastructure projects, even while opponents throw legislative roadblocks in front of the much larger, more obvious stretches of super-tollways that are part of the proposed international highway scheme that could consolidate the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
Such a three-part union must have an international mega-tollway network for even more free trade, a common currency and other physical and political tangibles—not just policy papers and books written by people like American University professor Robert Pastor that call for a "North American Community."
Much of the Trans-Texas Corridor part of the NAFTA Superhighway—whose two main branches are TTC-69 and TTC-35—has been set back by vigilant citizens. They worked overtime in the spring of 2009 shadowing their state legislators and getting them to oppose the TTC plan that could carve up many large Texas ranches held by the same families for generations. But some smaller highway projects that seem to fit into the TTC schematic indeed have taken root.
An especially notable project is the State Highway 130 tollway around Austin, Tex., which is so devoid of motorists at times that a plane landed on it during "peak traffic" and did not have to be rushed out of the way, although transportation crews closed part of the tollway for a time once they reached the scene. The pilot, 24-year-old Lindsey Moreland, told investigators she took off from an airstrip at Austin-Bergstrom Airport and was headed to Georgetown when she had engine trouble. SH 130 was closed while crews moved the single engine Cessna to the shoulder of the southbound lane. At 4:30 p.m. the highway was shut down again so the plane's owner could take off and fly to Temple.
An Aug. 17 Austin American-Statesman article included the sub-headline "New section will offer less congested route to Houston." But "less congested" is a major understatement when traffic is sparse enough for a pilot to land there during peak time. Thus, will SH 130 fail like another under-used private Texas toll route (Camino-Columbia) near Laredo that went belly-up?
Citing the Austin newspaper piece, the San Antonio Toll Party (SATP) activist group, which has helped slow the TTC onslaught over several years, issued a news bulletin that commented: "This article bills this leg of the Trans Texas Corridor/TTC-35 project as a way to avoid congestion to Houston when the original sales pitch for the loop was to relieve traffic on I-35 (which the segment from Georgetown to the airport has not done). However, the first leg of SH 130 . . . is ‘sooo' empty, that a plane landed on it during peak traffic. It begs the question: if no one can afford [to drive on it], then why build it?"
A major aspect of this development, according to SATP, is that SH 130—though not completely finished but is partly operational—is the first Texas road under foreign control if and when new sections are added. It is slated to remain under that control for the next 50 years.
A consortium called SH 130 Concession Co., led by private Spanish toll road operator Cintra—partnering with the huge San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Co.—is financing the $1.35 billion project. It will operate the toll road and hopes to profit from it over the next 50 years.
Noting the NAFTA connection, Wikipedia's listing for SH 130 describes it as follows: "A tollway from Interstate 35 (I-35) in Georgetown to U.S. 183 and SH 45 at Mustang Ridge. Portions south of Mustang Ridge will soon be under construction. When completed, SH 130 will run in an 89-mile corridor east and south of Austin. It parallels I-35 and is intended to relieve the Interstate's traffic volume through the Austin-San Antonio corridor by serving as an alternate route. The northern terminus of State Highway 130 is I-35 north of Georgetown. Its eventual southern terminus is Interstate 10 near Seguin. The highway was developed in response to the tremendous surge in truck traffic on the I-35 corridor brought on by the North American Free Trade Agreement during the late 1990s, especially truck traffic originating from Laredo, where the Texas Department of Transportation reported 150 trucks entering the United States every hour." SH 130 will eventually be six lanes. Ground was first broken for SH 130 on Oct. 3, 2003.
On June 28, 2006, Cintra-Zachry, the Trans-Texas Corridor developer, reached a $1.3 billion agreement with the state to build segments 5 and 6 from U.S. 183 to I-10 in Seguin.
"In exchange for their investment, Cintra-Zachry will receive the right to collect tolls for 50 years in a revenue sharing agreement with the state. The state will own the road while the developer will be responsible for financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance over the life of the agreement," Wikipedia also noted, confirming what critics are saying about decades of foreign control.
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 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|
New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank
Lautenberg is after your firearms again. His latest bill, called
"The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists
Act of 2009" (S. 1317), hands Attorney General Eric Holder
unprecedented power to deny someone is second Amendment right
without haveing been convicted of - or even charged with - a
crime. Under the legislation, all that needs to occur is that
an American has his name secretly added to a classified "terrorist
watch list" that is maintained by the FBI, and suddenly
that citizen can be denied his constitutionally affirmed right
to own a firearm.
Lautenberg's measure is currently being deliberated in the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary. So far, it has zero cosponsors.
Alan Gottlieb, the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, issued a press release excoriating Lautenberg for proposing a back door to total gun control.
Gottlieb says Lautenberg is using fear mongering to get his bill passed through Congress. Citing a Government Accountability Office report due to be released in late August, the New Jersey senator has claimed that from 2004 to February 2009 there were 963 cases of "known or suspected terrorists" attempting to purchase firearms.
Gottlieb, however, counters that the senator is only giving Americans half of the story.
"In 90 percent of those cases," said Gottlieb, "the purchases were allowed after the buyer cleared an FBI instant background check."
The obvious concern is that average Americans will have their names added to this growing "terrorist watch list" - some reports place it at over one million names - and there is nothing they will be able to do about it since the names on the list are secret.
This is not the first anti-gun measure Lautenberg has ramrodded through Congress. In 1997, the senator slipped through the Domestic violence Offender Gun Ban, also known as the Lautenberg Amendment, by attaching it to a must-pass funding bill. The act bars anyone convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence or hit with a restraining order from ever owning a firearm. You read that correctly - the individual in question can never own a gun again.
While no one wants dirt bags who beat up their wives to be able to murder them with a gun, the problem with Lautenberg's law is that it is overly broad and has been applied in cases where there were merely accusations of violence. In one now infamous case in Texas, a medical doctor, Timothy Emerson, found himself facing felony charges after he was hit with a restraining order by his wife. She had accused him of threatening her after he found about an affair she had been having with her hairdresser. Even though Emerson was acquitted of state charges, he was still sent to prison for 30 months for a felony of owning firearms while he was under the restraining order. Destitute and alone, Emerson has spent the past decade defending himself in an attempt to fight the federal law that has ruined his life and taken his good name.
"Lautenberg wants gun purchases stopped for just being
on the list," said Gottlieb. "Is your name on the list?
And can you get it removed?"
|Top|
As embarrassing as it was for groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the mainstream media to find out that the citizen who was legally carrying a rifle during a recent demonstration outside of a health care gathering involving President Obama was a black man - not come white "racist," they're still not giving up. Some in Congress now want to exploit the event in Phoenix in order to ban all firearms in "the vicinity" of the president even if state law allows residents to openly carry a firearm.
It all started when the mainstream media began breathlessly reporting in early August that several men were seen carrying rifles at a health care protest in Phoenix outside a building where Obama was giving a speech. Commentators in the news spent the next 24-hour news cycle reciting garbage peddled by Morris Dees and the ADL about the increasing number of militia members, racists and "extremists" who want to assassinate the first black president. The problem, however, was that the citizen who cited to a reporter the Constitution as his justification for carrying an AR-15 - a "high-powered military=style assault rifle" in media-speak - at the rally happened to be a black man. Several cable news stations did their best to edit out any distinguishing characteristics of the man, who identified himself only as "Chris." The unedited video uploaded to the Internet, however, revealed that the man in the interview was, in fact, black.
But that hasn't stopped gun grabbers in Congress from exploiting the event to undermine pro-gun state laws and the Second Amendment.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) has called on the Homeland
security Department and the Secret service to widen the security
perimeter around the president and bar any citizen from exercising
his legal right to carry a weapon even when it is legal. Despite
the fact that Ms. Norton is not even a real legislator, her opinion
carries some weight as she sits on the powerful House Committee
on Homeland Security.
|Top|
A noted 9-11 activism organizer who helps raise awareness of council on Foreign Relation manipulation of U.S. policy told AFP that rallies, speaking engagements and other activities near "ground Zero" in lower Manhattan and elsewhere in the Big Apple are coming together for Sept. 10 through Sept. 13. AFP will be there.
Luke Fudowski - known for confrontational journalism that involves taking impromptu videos of controversial public figures and asking them tough questions on camera - said that he and his associates will make some interesting stops along their activism tour during this eighth-anniversary of the quaint "flying Muslims" tale that the federal government maintains is the "whole story" of what killed more than 3,000 Americans at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in rural Pennsylvania on 9-11-01.
These stops include protests outside of the homes of certain financial and political heavyweights whose complicity in the crimes of 9-11 is strongly suspected, Rudowski noted, adding that on September 10, he will conduct a "teach-in" on Canal Street on how to conduct responsible street activism.
"It's about teaching people how to be effective - it's about activism," Rudowski told AFP. "I includes how to talk to police. We're going to have lawyers there teaching people how to do things properly. Helping more people become "citizen journalists" is among the goals.
He added: "All the money raised - every single cent - goes to charity," referring to the efforts of members of the group We Are Change to conduct events to aid sickened 9-11 ground zero workers who were exposed to toxic dust and materials during the massive post-attack cleanup that brought in first-responders from across the country. "And anybody that doesn't have money can come and take part anyway."
He also said: "A lot of surprise guests will be coming out of nowhere," hinting that celebrities who are skeptical of the 9-11 official story may appear. Celebrity 9-11 skeptics who have spoken out in past years include actor Carlos Estevez (Charlie Sheen).
Rudowski or another We Are Change spokesman is tentatively set to appear on this AFP writer's radio show, "When Worlds Collide," on September 5 at 8 p.m. EST. Go to WWW.RepublicBroadcasting.org. (Call-in number for Republic Broadcasting Network is 800-313-9443).
"We'll have rallies everywhere," Rudowski said, noting that specific speaker information and other facts can be gleaned from WeAreChange.org/91109 online.
Look for Rudowski and company near the official 9-11 memorial
observance. Their activism is expected to intensify just after
the memorial. Their overall idea is to honor the fallen with
an unbending search for the whole truth of 9-11-01, not just
marking their daths with formalities.
|Top|
A federal judge ruled on Aug. 24 that the Federal reserve, America's Privately owned and controlled secrecy-loving central bank, must release details surrounding $2 trillion in loans it has made to unknown financial institutions worldwide.
New-York-based Bloomberg News, owned by New York city Mayor Michael Bloomberg, file the lawsuit (Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York) charging that the public had the right to know the facts about the loans made by the Fed since taxpayers were ultimately on the line for the money. Lawyers for the media outlet argued that U.S. Taxpayers had a right to know of "the risks" surrounding the Fed's lending practices since the public is an "involuntary investor" in the financial institutions, which received loans and other assistance, including loan guarantees.
There is certainly cause for concern here. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet shows that the central bank's activity has grown significantly since the economic downturn first hit in the summer of 2008. In the past six months alone, the Fed's assets - banks log loans as assets, not liabilities - have doubled since the economic recession first hit, amounting to untold trillions of dollars. This money, which has been loaned into circulation by the Fed, has been handed out like candy to banks around the world.
Prior to Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska's decision, Fed officials had wanted to keep secret specific information on loans amounting to over $2 trillion, which had been made by 11 different Federal Reserve funding arms. They claimed that revealing the details about who got the loans and how much each organization received could lead to investors selling off stock in those banks or customers pulling their savings.
Ironically, the ruling against the Fed came as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Bloomberg. Enacted in 1966, FOIA gives individuals and organizations the power to sue the U.S. government in order to obtain previously unreleased information and documents controlled by federal agencies. But the Federal Reserve is not federal at all; it is an independent organization that operates with no accountability in a gray zone outside the public and private sectors.
According to official policy, the Fed is "an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects." However, the structure of the Federal Reserve System belies its quasi-public claim.
The Fed is actually owned by private banks, which buy stock in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that make up the operating arms of the system. Not every bank in America is a member. But all nationally chartered banks including the biggest in the world, hold stock in the Federal Reserve. Smaller state-chartered banks, on the other hand, have the option of choosing whether they will be members. And while the president of the United States appoints the top bankers of the Federal Reserve's decision-making board, it is clear that the choices are spoon-fed to him by those in the moneyed class.
Despite what the Fed claims, no elected official or bureaucrat in the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of the government has any oversight over the central bank. Congress abdicated control in 1913 upon passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Short of amending that legislation, Congress, which supposedly represents the American people, has no say whatsoever in the Fed's decisions regarding monetary policy.
It should be added that the American people have nothing to do with how the Federal Reserve and, more generally, the fractional reserve banking system function in the modern age. The Fed creates money by loaning it to banks, which, in turn, loan it to individuals, businesses and governments. In other words, before one dollar touches a citizen's hand, it is already costing you money and turning a profit for the banks.
No one knows why these issues were not addressed at length in Bloomberg's lawsuit as editors at the media outlet failed to return repeated emails sent by AFP, which posed the question about the private nature of the Fed. Whatever their reasons were, this allowed the judge to rule in favor of the organization seeking the information and will hopefully force transparency on the top bankers.
"Considering the nature of the banking situation, which
these guys - the Fed and the people it represents brought on
the world, hurray for that judge," Stephen Zarlenga told
AFP in an exclusive interview. "Most people think that the
Fed is a part of the government. The Fed knows better, and I
think the judge probably does so, too. But if the Fed wants to
pretend they're part of the government - so be it. That's the
minimum direction we have to move in to get transparency.
|Top|
What has happened in America? In all my days as a young man growing up in Lincoln, Neb., my four years at "Big Red" Nebraska University and my 27-year career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I have never seen such unconstitutional laws, policies and misconduct by officials in the local, state and federal levels of government. The wonderful "baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet" America I experienced most of my years has nearly disappeared.
As a former high-ranking federal law enforcement officer, I have seen detrimental changes in our society since I retired from the FBI in 1979. Modern atrocities - shocking beyond belief - continue to be perpetrated by an out-of-control government, corrupt politics and a broken justice system. The moral fiber which was one prevalent in America has become frayed and discolored.
Many law enforcement personnel across America are perpetrating felony crimes and outrageous brutality against our citizens. People, including children, pregnant women and old folks, are being tasered during traffic stops and at other times when police accost individuals - most having never perpetrated a genuine crime. Many have been eletrocuted, beaten up and taken into custody simply for questioning the authority, probable cause or intent of the so-called "peace officer." Recently a professional photographer was arrested for merely filming the FBI building in Washington, D.C. this kind of First amendment violation would have never happened during the time I was a special agent with the FBI. It is obvious something is terribly wrong with the bureau and with our government.
Examine recent news concerning the swine flu pandemic which the World Health Organization recently reported will infect 2 billion people worldwide and result in tens of thousands of deaths. Authorities are expecting so many deaths. Authorities are expecting so many deaths they are stockpiling plastic coffins, preparing mass graves and informing morgue operators and law enforcement personnel to begin preparing for wide-scale pandemic quarantines, mass evacuations and deaths. The military is aggressively preparing to deploy troops into the streets of America - in the event of a serious domestic "emergency" - in blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of June 18, 1878. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), an agency of the U.S. Department ofHomeland Security (DHS), has supported the"swine flu" propaganda and is effectively exercising the executive power granted it in the event of a national disaster.
Recent Internet news stories abound about the possible forced vaccinations of children who will be taken out of public schools for this purpose and, absent the parents' permission, inoculated with the HINI vaccine. (See Google.com) Suspiciously, the swine flu vaccine was patented a year before the so-called "outbreak."
I believe this coming biological event or pandemic is another "False Flag" operation. Will quarantines be used as the means of rounding up New World Order resisters into the detention camps across the nation which have been discreetly built and maintained for years? (See AFP issue 35, August 31, 2009.- Ed.)
Will Americans be exterminated in the same manner as Stalin's gulags snuffed out the lives of millions?
My advice in this time of extreme danger is to trust in almighty
God, pray, never surrender your firearms and resist this godless,
Communistic tyranny through legal means by electing public officials
at all levels of the government who will strictly abide by the
constitution.
|Top|
Former Congressman Jim Traficant
came home to freedom on September 2 after serving seven years
in prison for crimes he did not commit. More than a thousand
of his friends and admirers bought tickets to a banquet being
held in his honor in Boardman, Ohio in his former congressional
district surrounding Youngstown. Click on Jim to watch video.
Although the major media is still smearing Traficant as a "crook," those who know Traficant know his prison sentence was "a railroad job" from the beginning. The fact is that although there are probably dozens of members of Congress who could be indicted and convicted for major criminal offenses involving high-stakes bribery and influence peddling that is often quite open and never prosecuted, the Justice Department spent many years coming up with a handful of dubious charges against Traficant.
Ask anyone who knows how it works in official Washington and they'll privately admit that the real reason Traficant was indicted on criminal charges was simply the fact that "the powers that be" didn't like Traficant: he was just too honest and too outspoken.
Right up front, let's lay it out. Here were some of Traficant's real "crimes" in the eyes of the elite who railroaded him into federal prison in 2002:
• Criticizing the Internal Revenue Service and calling for expanded protection for the rights of taxpayers under fire from the IRS;
• Taking a hard-line stand against NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and so-called "free" trade and urging protectionist measures to preserve American jobs, defend domestic industry from predatory global speculators and save the American economy.
• Tackling not only corruption inside the FBI and the Justice Department, but also assailing the personal integrity of former Attorney General Janet Reno;
• Attacking Wall Street wheeling and dealing and raising questions about the enrichment of high-level financial interests through the lending practices of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
• Accusing then-Vice President Al Gore of "trying to steal the election" in the midst of the long-and-drawnout post-election debacle in 2000;
• Calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from trouble-spots around the globe and questioning constant U.S. meddling in the affairs of other nations;
• Charging American policymakers with treason for having given top-secret U.S. defense and nuclear technology to the butchers in Peking;
• Coming to the defense of Ukraine-born Cleveland autoworker John Demjanjuk, who was falsely charged by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Justice Department‘s Office of Special Investigations of being a "Nazi war criminal"—only to be cleared, ironically, by an Israeli court. (Ultimately, with Traficant sidelined in his own federal trial, they went after Demjanjuk again on "new" charges and restarted the process of seeking to deport the beleaguered old man, who is now in Germany facing trial on 29,000 counts of being an accessory to the alleged murder of European Jews.)
• Demanding that U.S. troops be sent to guard the Mexican border and prevent continuing hordes of illegal aliens—and potential terrorists—from entering into the United States; and—last but very far from least:
• Challenging one-sided U.S. aid and support for Israel, saying that the biased policy was to the detriment of America's security and Middle East interests.
Traficant was the only member of Congress—the day after the Sept. 11 tragedy—to point out that U.S. support for Israel and open borders were root problems leading to the tragedy.
While Traficant enunciated these truths, other members of Congress squirmed uneasily, sitting in silence, as Traficant spoke out—even in the face of his impending trial—never one to be cowed.
Congressman Jim Traficant was most assuredly lynched by the Justice Department just as if he had been taken by force and hanged from a lamp post near the U.S. Capitol in Washington—a method of justice that certainly should be applied to many of the corrupt individuals who continue to misrule America from their positions in Congress and throughout official Washington.
However, what happened to Traficant could happen to any American should he or she fall into the gunsights of the powerful forces that reign supreme in America. The Traficant case is the proverbial tip of the iceberg, for the truth is that sitting alongside Traficant in prisons today—federal, state and local—there are probably thousands of Americans who were as much victims of an unjust system as Traficant.
These people, too, are "political prisoners" in the plainest and most very real sense of the words. But we haven't heard about these folks because they didn't have the high public profile of the outspoken Jim Traficant.
So the lesson to be learned is simple: Even someone in a position of influence—such as a U.S. congressman—can be railroaded into prison by the very people whose job it is to enforce the laws.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
FORGET ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE READ on so-called healthcare reform, says Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). The purported uproar over private versus public health insurance options is really a ruse to cover up a proposal for taxpayer-funded subsidies that will be paid to the billion- dollar private insurance industry.
Under new "compromise" language inserted into the 1,000-page health care bill, titled the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200), Americans will be forced to choose which for profit health insurance company they want to take. If you can't afford any of the private health insurance plans, the government will pick one for you and then front you the money. But the catch is: you will still be obligated to pay all of the premiums, the co-pays and the high deductibles.
"The hotly debated H.R. 3200, the so called ‘healthcare reform' bill, is nothing less than corporate welfare in the guise of social welfare and reform," said Kucinich.
The public option will be gone, he said, leaving only government aid to private insurance companies. Worse still, the federal government will force taxpayers to pay for it all without pressing for cost controls and no guarantees of coverage from any of the participating private insurers.
"If the matter were not so serious, it would be farcical," he said. "The executive branch pretends that the proposed healthcare reforms are something they are not. The legislation is being attacked for something it is not. Congressional leadership and the White House defend the legislation, pretending it actually is the very proposal that is being attacked. But it is not."
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|
IT IS OFTEN REPORTED THAT ISRAEL receives about $9.2 billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government, but there are many billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $3 trillion. About 60 percent of those costs (about $1.7 trillion) arose from the U.S. defense of the ever-expanding Israeli empire.
Support for the empire comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts.
In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some 275,000 American jobs each year. The trade-aid imbalance with Israel is between $6 billion and $10 billion. The largest single element in the costs has been the series of oil-supply crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the construction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These have cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion, excluding the additional costs incurred since 2001.
The cost of supporting Israel increased drastically after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war. U.S. support for Israel during that war resulted in additional costs for the American taxpayer of between $750 billion and $1 trillion. When Israel was losing the war, President Richard Nixon stepped in to supply the Jewish state with U.S. weapons. Nixon's intervention triggered the Arab oil embargo, which cost the U.S. as much as $600 billion in lost GDP and another $450 billion in higher oil import costs.
The 1973 oil crisis cost the U.S. economy no less than $900 billion, and probably as much as $1.2 trillion. As a result of the oil embargo the U.S. government created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to "insulate Israel and the U.S. against the wielding of a future Arab "oil weapon."
The billion-barrel SPR has cost taxpayers more than $134 billion so far. Making things worse, Israel gets "first call" on any oil available to the U.S. if Israel's oil supply is stopped, according to an oil supply guarantee, which former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger provided Israel in 1975. The $3 trillion figure is actually too low, as it does not include the increased costs incurred during the year-long buildup to the ongoing wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in which Israel plays a significant covert role.
The higher oil prices incurred as a result of the Anglo-American campaign against Iraq were absorbed by taxpayers. Israel also has many hidden costs to the taxpayer. "Loans" made to Israel by the U.S. government invariably wind up being paid by the American taxpayer as does the interest on the money to Israel. Thus, it is reasonable to consider all government loans to Israel the same as grants. Israel has received over $42 billion in waived loans.
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|
Israel's covert war against Iran has so far involved a combination of classic counterinsurgency tactics, including, disinformation, manipulation of foreign media outlets, threats of air assaults and the use of proxies to carry out paramilitary operations in several Middle East countries.
The latest casualty in this war is the truth about an alleged shipment of Russian Cruise missiles bound for Iran. By some accounts, the missiles were hidden on a freighter, the Arctic Seal, which had spent some time being refitted in the Russian port of Kaliningrad, a heavily militarized zone. Since 1991, Russia has moved nuclear missiles to Kaliningrad Oblast, an area that borders Poland and Lithuania, both EU-NATO countries. Kaliningrad has also been the port for Russia's Baltic Fleet for decades.
The Arctic Sea was in Kaliningrad at the beginning of July 7 before its Russian crew took on a Finnish cargo of timber. It then made its way into international waters under a Maltese flag, re portedly heading to Algeria, a country that has often acted as a transit point for weapons and other materials bound for Iran. At the end of July, reports surfaces in European media outlets that the 7,000 ton ship had vanished and that last reports had put her in Swedish waters on the evening of July 24. How and why those reports reached media outlets remain a mystery as do other reports that pirates had hijacked the vessel. Bona fide shipping organizations reacted with skepticism when it was claimed the ship could not be located by radar. That skepticism increased when it was made public the ship's cargo was worth less than $1 million. Several media outlets in Britain doubted pirates would plan an elaborate theft of a ship and risk capture in one of the world's most heavily monitored shipping lanes for a cargo of timber. There had to be more to the story. Was it possible the ship had a secret cargo of drugs or weapons?
Shipping monitors in Europe expressed incredulity that any vessel could merely vanish the way the Arctic Sea had done but EU sources had little to say about the issue. More perplexing was the fact that Russia appeared to do little about the ship even though it had a Russian crew.
The mystery deepened when the Arctic Sea was seized by a Russian anti-submarine ship off the Cape Verde Islands on Aug. 17, 3,000 miles from its port of departure. It was taken under escort to the port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, where its crew of 15 was released. However, eight other men on board were charged with piracy. The Russian family of one of the alleged pirates contacted a local newspaper after seeing television footage of the eight who were arrested. The family said a man they recognized was their nephew who had vanished in a fishing accident three years ago and was thought to be dead. More puzzling was the revelation by a Russian general that the Arctic Sea had never vanished and had been under Russian naval scrutiny throughout its voyage. If that was so, why did Russia pay so much attention to a ship that was allegedly carrying $1 million in timber.
The most puzzling aspect of the story surrounds subsequent reports that Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, hired the eight pirates to board the ship and that the CIA was instrumental in tipping off the Israelis that Russian cruise missiles were hidden beneath its cargo of timber. Whether or not Russia was behind a plan to send missiles by sea, well informed sources in Europe believe Israel was behind the leaking of the story abut the ship, thereby embarrassing the Russians and forcing them to intercept it. Twenty-four hours after the ship was put under Russian naval control, Israel's president, Shimon Peres, visited Moscow, and high on his agenda was the issue of Russia supplying arms to Iran. Israeli media outlets claimed Israel had nothing to do with the seizing of the Arctic Sea and the eight pirates were really environmentalists concerned about the timber.
While the truth may never be made known, Israel has benefitted from the leaking of the story. The tactic of feeding stories to international media outlets is nothing new for the Mossad. It has even fed classified U.S. documents about Washington's Iran policy to major American news outlets in order to heighten fear about Iran and to force Congress to fall into line with Tel Aviv's Mideast strategy.
On another level, the U.S. has helped by turning a blind eye to Israel's use of proxy organizations to carry out attacks within Iran and Lebanon and to produce questionable intelligence about Iran's nuclear program. The CIA and Mossad have hired disgruntled Kurds and shadowy Sunni groups in both Iraq and Pakistan to mount assassinations and abductions of Iranian military and scientific figures. One of the groups operating against Iran from Pakistan is called Jundullah, which has bases in Baluchistan bordering Iran and Afghanistan, claims it has killed 400 Iranian soldiers as well as Iranian military and scientivic advisors. Some well-informed intelligence commentators believe the Jundullah provides cover for MEK's military wing as a terrorist organization, many of its members were held and protected for years by the U.S. military in special camps in souther Iraq. MEK has also had ties to Mossad, which approves its declared aim to overthrow the Iranian regime. It was MEK, according to its leadership, which provided the U.S. with intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities - intelligence the U.S. passed to Israel.
The Mossad and the CIA have also trained Kurds in northern Iraq to infiltrate the Kurdish community in Iran with the aim of carrying out surveillance, as well as operations aimed at destabilizing the regime.
Recently, that story took on new meaning with revelations
that proxy groupings carried out bombings in parts of Iran prior
to the general election there, including the bombing of a mosque.
|Top|
August 24-28 has been an interesting week indeed for the Federal Reserve. Early in the week, it was announced that President Obama intends to reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term in January, signaling a vote of confidence in him. Bernanke seems to be popular with the administration and with Wall Street, and for good reason. His lending policies have left big banks flush with newly created cash that covers up old mistakes and allows for new ones. By buying up mountains of Treasury debt he has also enabled spending to soar to ridiculous levels that should startle any responsible economist, and scare any American concerned about the value of the dollar. However, these highly sensitive decisions about our money are not made by economists, they are made by politicians. Bernanke, like most of his predecessors, is the politician's best friend. But there is no reason to believe any other central planner would behave any differently, considering the immense political pressure on the Fed.
Fed policies have been as bad for the economy as they are good for politicians and bankers, as the recently released numbers on the debt and deficit demonstrate. For the first time since world War II percent of the nation's gross domestic product. It is also projected that by 2019 the national debt will be 68 percent of GDP. Our path, if unchanged, is completely untenable.
The administration claims that it inherited a dire situation from the last administration, which is absolutely true. However, that hasn't stopped them from accepting all the policies and premises that got us here, and accelerating those policies to rapidly make a bad situation much worse. The bailouts started with the last administration. They have gotten bigger with this one. The last administration gave us expanded government involvement in healthcare with a new prescription drug benefit. This administration gave us a renewal and expansion of State Childrens' Health Insurance Program, and now the current healthcare takeover attempts. In reality, we can afford none of this, but shady monetary policy allows Washington to continue along its merry way, aggravating all our economic problems.
Not everyone in government finds it acceptable that the Fed wields so much power and privilege in secrecy, compelling them to release under the freedom of Information Act information regarding which banks received emergency loans, and under what terms. The Fed will, of course do everything in its power to fight this ruling, and it is certainly not the last word on the issue. Still, it is encouraging to see that the interests of the taxpayers were defended victoriously in court while the Fed only sees the plight of its big banker friends.
Meanwhile HR 1207 and S 604, legislation to open up the Fed's
books to a complete audit, continue to gain momentum in Congress
as the people continue to insist on real transparency, of the
Federal Reserve. One way or another, the days of Fed autonomy
are coming to an end, as well they should. No one should have
the power to debauch the currency and gut the economy as they
do. It is time they answered for their actions, so the people
can understand that we truly are better off with freedom instead
of Fed tyranny.
|Top|
In Israel, a country stolen from the Palestinians, fanatics control the government. One of the fanatics is the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Last week Netanyahu called for "crippling sanctions" against Iran.
The kind of blockade that Netanyahu wants qualifies as an act of war. Israel has long threatened to attack Iran on its own but prefers to draw in the US and NATO.
Why does Israel want to initiate a war between the United States and Iran?
Is Iran attacking other countries, bombing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure?
No. These are crimes committed by Israel and the US.
Is Iran evicting peoples from lands they have occupied for centuries and herding them into ghettoes?
No, that's what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for 60 years.
What is Iran doing?
Iran is developing nuclear energy, which is its right as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran's nuclear energy program is subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which consistently reports that its inspections find no diversion of enriched uranium to a weapons program.
The position taken by Israel, and by Israel's puppet in Washington, is that Iran must not be allowed to have the rights as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that every other signatory has, because Iran might divert enriched uranium to a weapons program.
In other words, Israel and the US claim the right to abrogate Iran's right to develop nuclear energy. The Israeli/US position has no basis in international law or in anything other than the arrogance of Israel and the United States.
The hypocrisy is extreme. Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and developed its nuclear weapons illegally on the sly, with, as far as we know, US help.
As Israel is an illegal possessor of nuclear weapons and has a fanatical government that is capable of using them, crippling sanctions should be applied to Israel to force it to disarm.
Israel qualifies for crippling sanctions for another reason. It is an apartheid state, as former US President Jimmy Carter demonstrated in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
The US led the imposition of sanctions against South Africa because of South Africa's apartheid practices. The sanctions forced the white government to hand over political power to the black population. Israel practices a worse form of apartheid than did the white South African government. Yet, Israel maintains that it is "anti-semitic" to criticize Israel for a practice that the world regards as abhorrent.
What remains of the Palestinian West Bank that has not been stolen by Israel consists of isolated ghettoes. Palestinians are cut off from hospitals, schools, their farms, and from one another. They cannot travel from one ghetto to another without Israeli permission enforced at checkpoints.
The Israeli government's explanation for its gross violation of human rights comprises one of the greatest collection of lies in world history. No one, with the exception of American "christian zionists," believes one word of it.
The United States also qualifies for crippling sanctions. Indeed, the US is over-qualified. On the basis of lies and intentional deception of the US Congress, the US public, the UN and NATO, the US government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and used the "war on terror" that Washington orchestrated to overturn US civil liberties enshrined in the US Constitution. One million Iraqis have paid with their lives for America's crimes and four million are displaced. Iraq and its infrastructure are in ruins, and Iraq's professional elites, necessary to a modern organized society, are dead or dispersed. The US government has committed a war crime on a grand scale. If Iran qualifies for sanctions, the US qualifies a thousand times over.
No one knows how many women, children, and village elders have been murdered by the US in Afghanistan. However, the American war of aggression against the Afghan people is now in its ninth year. According to the US military, an American victory is still a long ways away. Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared in August that the military situation in Afghanistan is "serious and deteriorating."
Older Americans can look forward to the continuation of this war for the rest of their lives, while their Social Security and Medicare rights are reduced in order to free up funds for the US armaments industry. Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden have made munitions the only safe stock investment in the United States.
What is the purpose of the war of aggression against Afghanistan? Soon after his inauguration, President Obama promised to provide an answer but did not. Instead, Obama quickly escalated the war in Afghanistan and launched a new one in Pakistan that has already displaced 2 million Pakistanis. Obama has sent 21,000 more US troops into Afghanistan and already the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, is requesting 20,000 more.
Obama is escalating America's war of aggression against the Afghanistan people despite three high profile opinion polls that show that the American public is firmly opposed to the continuation of the war against Afghanistan.
Sadly, the ironclad agreement between Israel and Washington to war against Muslim peoples is far stronger than the connection between the American public and the American government. At a farewell dinner party last Thursday for Israel's military attache in Washington, who is returning to Israel to become deputy chief of staff of the Israeli military, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, and and Dan Shapiro, who is in charge of Middle East affairs on the National Security Council, were present to pay their respects. Admiral Mullen declared that the US will always stand with Israel. No matter how many war crimes Israel commits. No matter how many women and children Israel murders. No many how many Palestinians Israel drives from their homes, villages, and lands. If truth could be told, the true axis-of-evil is the United States and Israel.
Millions of Americans are now homeless because of foreclosures. Millions more have lost their jobs, and even more millions have no access to health care. Yet, the US government continues to squander hundreds of billions of dollars on wars that serve no US purpose. President Obama and General McChrystal have taken the position that they know best, the American public be damned.
It could not be made any clearer that the President of the United States and the US military have no regard whatsoever for democracy, human rights, and international law. This is yet another reason to apply crippling sanctions against Washington, a government that has emerged under Bush/Obama as a brownshirt state that deals in lies, torture, murder, war crimes, and deception.
Many governments are complicit in America's war crimes. With Obama's budget deep in the red, Washington's wars of naked aggression are dependent on financing by the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Saudis, South Koreans, Indians, Canadians and Europeans. The second this foreign financing of American war crimes stops, America's wars of aggression against Muslims stop.
The US is not a forever "superpower" that can indefinitely ignore its own laws and international law. The US will eventually fall as a result of its hubris, arrogance, and imperial overreach. When the American Empire collapses, will its enablers also be held accountable in the war crimes court?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of
Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
|Top|
"Barack Obama wants to shut down the Internet. He's becoming Big Brother."
These types of accusations are plaguing the highly criticized Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S. 773). However, at this time, the government cannot terminate the Internet for any extended duration as there is not a "switch" that can be flipped to shut it down.
The reason is that U.S. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are independent entities and not state-owned as they are in China or North Korea. Anyone who says the government can shut it down either doesn't understand how the Internet works, or is pushing a fear-based agenda.
The real cause for concern revolves around how the government wants to deal with privately owned ISPs. As it stands now, the Net is reminiscent of an unregulated Wild West. But, if President Obama were to declare a "cybersecurity emergency" under this newly updated legislation, our country's communications networks would become more vulnerable to external control.
In the Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) bill, federal authorities would create a single, standardized set of regulations for all designated private networks.
Greg Nojeim of the Center for Democracy & Technology warned in April, "if everyone builds to the same standard and the bad guys know these standards, it makes it easier for the bad guys." Thus, rather than trying to cripple a complex, autonomous World Wide Web (a virtually impossible task), Huliq News points out, "those attacking the U.S. could break through the single standard rather than the various ones that exist now."
If a national emergency arises, Roy Marks wrote on August 31 in "Revised Bill Still Gives Obama Unprecedented Cyber-security Powers," "the Secretary of Commerce would have the authority to access ‘all relevant data concerning ISPs without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.'"
This agency, in league with the National Security Agency (NSA), will then decide when the Internet is to be restored following any given crisis situation.
Wayne Crews, technology director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, states, "Virtually anything networked to some other computer is potentially fair game if President Obama exercises ‘emergency powers.'"
In the meantime, researcher and activist Tom Burghardt surmised on Aug. 29 that the government and mainstream media will "become the sole conduit for critical news and information during a ‘national emergency.'"
The ominous nature of this standardization (including "cybersecurity blacklists") is reflected in a commentary by techno-journalist Declan McCullagh. "If your company is deemed ‘critical,' a new set of regulations kicks in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network."
In their zeal to freeze private online service providers, Dwight Schwab Jr., in "Still Think ‘Big Brother' is a Silly Concept?," notes that the heavy-handed actions mentioned earlier will ensue at the government's sole discretion via licensed "cybersecurity professionals."
Considering the recent spate of cyber attacks against our country, lawmakers should instead focus on strengthening the safety of their own networks. In addition, many Americans feel more threatened by the intrusiveness of their own government rather than the perpetual bogeyman used to keep us in a state of continual fear.
To augment this point, Burghardt examined the Cybersecurity Act's sponsors. It was drafted by Rockefeller and Snowe. Both are staunch allies of the National Security Agency and the telecommunications industry. And both were "key enablers of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping and privacy-killing data mining programs that continue apace under Obama," Burghardt points out.
"The New York Times revealed in June how a former NSA analyst described a secret database code-named Pinwale that archived foreign and domestic e-mail messages. . . . two intelligence officers confirmed that the program was still in operation," says Burghardt.
In a June 16 NewYork Times article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, government officials testified before Congress that "intercepts of the private telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans are broader than previously acknowledged."
Where the subject of computers is concerned, right now the government is limited in their ability to shut down the Internet.
But if draconian new legislation is passed, they will greatly increase their potential to make themselves the sole providers of information in times of widespread upheaval and panic. If such an apparatus is established, Americans may find themselves in a "virtual information void" when information and technology is most needed.
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|
Ohio Congressman Jim Traficant went into prison unbent and unbowed and—despite seven years behind bars—the outspoken Ohio populist remains unbent and unbowed.
On Sept. 10—just a few days after arriving home from prison—Traficant appeared on Fox News as a guest of reporter Greta Van Susteren and demonstrated, once again, that he is the same no-holds-barred critic of special interest influence over the U.S. government that he was during the 18 years he served in Congress (1989-2002).
Assessing his years of torment and imprisonment by the federal authorities Traficant summed it up as follows:
I didn't give a damn what they did to me. And from this day forward, talking with you, I don't give a damn what anybody does to me. I'm going to say what I think is right, I'm going to do what I think is right. And if it offends some people, then so be it. But if you're a politician and you support me, you're in trouble. If you're a businessman and you give me money on my finance report, you get audited. I was a target. And you know what I'm most proud of? That I was that target. I must have been doing something damn right. I was doing the right things.
During the interview with Fox News, Traficant made a number of comments about political realities in America that, in the estimation of many viewers, were some of the most candid reflections ever heard live on the air from an American political figure.
Following the interview, the elite Jewish Telegraph Agency—which bills itself as "the definitive source for American Jewish community news and opinion" and as "the global news service of the Jewish people"—issued a blast at the former congressman, saying, "James Traficant has come out of prison spewing conspiracy theories about Israel."
What was it that Traficant said that so exercised the JTA and other powerful pressure groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which consistently agitated against Traficant during his years in Congress?
First of all, Traficant dared to say that he was, in his words, "the number one target of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." He went on to assert: I believe that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control the members of both the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don't beat you at the polls, they'll put you in prison.
As far as Israeli influence on U.S. affairs, he said that his comments were "an objective assessment that no one will have the courage to speak about," adding "they're controlling much of our foreign policy. They're influencing much of our domestic policy."
He added: We're conducting the expansionist policy of Israel and everybody's afraid to say it. They control much of the media, they control much of the commerce of the country, and they control powerfully both bodies of the Congress. They own the Congress [sic].
Traficant pointed out that between the direct foreign aid grants to Israel, along with all of the other benefits including trade compacts, economic and military assistance, "Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child [sic].And people in my district are losing their pension benefits. So, I was targeted big-time."
He pointed out that pro-Israel forces—such as Paul Wolfowitz—manipulated then-President Bush into invading Iraq and that they also pushed Bush to invade Iran. When asked by Fox's reporter if he was an "anti-Semite," Traficant said he wasn't but "that's exactly what they're going to say, and I expect that." Rather, he said: What I am is an American. You see, I think America comes first. And we have a one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast, and we've alienated Arabs who have no way of fighting. So, what they've done—and I predicted this on the House floor—is they would export violence to America. And they have. They have no other way to fight. I think President Obama knows this. I think he sees this. I think he wants to do something. I think his hands are tied, and I think he's dancing between the raindrops, trying to figure how I can politically machinate some scenario to mitigate these problems. I'm saying this. America is in danger if Americans doesn't take back their government without foreign influence, interference.
Traficant also pointed out that another reason he became a target of influential American Jewish organizations and their allies in the Justice Department and its "nazi-hunting" Office of Special Investigations was the fact that he came to the defense of John Demjanjuk. Certain American Jewish organizations had accused the Ukraine-born Demjanjuk of having been a concentration camp guard during World War II. Demjanjuk insisted that he was not the alleged "Ivan the Terrible" (as the camp guard was supposedly known by the inmates). However, only Traficant came to Demjanjuk's defense.
Having come to recognize Demjanjuk had been railroaded, Traficant used the powers at his disposal to investigate the affair. Ultimately the Israeli Supreme Court set aside Demjanjuk's conviction and the death sentence.
Traficant flew to Israel to bring Demjanjuk home and, as Traficant pointed out, as far as the Israeli Supreme Court was concerned, he "gave them credit—big time."
It's no coincidence that the very week Traficant himself was ultimately sentenced to jail, the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Sunday magazine interviewed Eli Rosenbaum, the staff director of the OSI, who said, "There's only one member of Congress who has ever tried to take us on and interfere with our work, and he will be sentenced in federal court."
Pulling no punches in his interview with Fox, Traficant charged the Justice Department and the OSI of having suborned perjury in its efforts to destroy Demjanjuk. But, as Traficant pointed out, the OSI continued to pursue Demjanjuk and just a few months ago he was deported to Germany where he now faces another war crimes trial.
"If someone doesn't look into this," Traficant told Fox News, " the American people should be ashamed of themselves. When you allow one American to be violated, you threaten the freedoms of every American."
Discussing his imprisonment, Traficant reflected on his years behind bars and the apparent determination of the authorities in D.C.—not the guards at the prisons where he was jailed—to make his life as hard as possible:
For me, it was tough. The first place I went was Allenwood, and I think the reason I was sent there is there were a lot of illegal immigrants there. And they knew I had advocated troops on the border to block illegal immigration. I think I was put in a position by enemies in the government to be hurt.
When I was at Allenwood, I had a guy say—he would refute this—but he said, "My mother's your biggest fan. Watch yourself." We can't even do anything with you: everything is coming out of Washington.
Before long, I was in the hole. They were my captors. I didn't give a damn about them. I had nothing to do with them. And the hole didn't bother me. It gave me time to think. Most political figures go to some camps in country clubs. I didn't. I went through some tough times.
Traficant noted that, while in Congress, he had put forth legislation to stop putting non-violent offenders, including those suffering from drug addiction, into prisons.
However, he said, "now what you have is, they want to keep the prisons open, keep the jobs going to keep the federal prison bureaucracy and the private prison industries operating. They're putting 20, 30 years on some of these young people, and it's out of hand."
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|
All-New Evidence Discovered Proving Jim Traficant Was Victim of Frame-Up
Although the book Target: Traficant presents a wide array of evidence demonstrating that U.S. Justice Department lawyers committed a variety of outrages against Jim Traficant and many of his longtime friends in the wide-ranging effort to "get" Traficant, during his recent talk at his "welcome home" event, Traficant referenced another individual, Nnamdi J. Okolo, also victimized by the Justice Department as part of the campaign to find "evidence" to send Traficant to prison.
Traficant pointed out that the Okolo story has never been reported in the Youngstown area newspapers (which have otherwise been eager to report many negative things about Traficant over the years). Here is Traficant's story:
"There's a young Nigerian, a black man, who approached me at Allenwood Prison when I was walking around the track. He said to me, ‘You're the reason I'm in prison.' . . . I thought the guy was going to hit me and he said, ‘No, I'm not going to hit you.'
" ‘The government pressured me to lie against you. They wanted me to lie against Richard Detore to pressure Detore to give false testimony against you.'
"He said, ‘I don't know you from Adam, but Detore has two small children like me and I would have had to hurt Detore, too. And I'll be honest with you, if it had been just you, I would have done what they wanted, but I just couldn't do it to Detore.' "
Here's a brief overview of the shocking story mentioned by Traficant:
For one month, in 1999, at a time when his own car was being repaired, Traficant rented a car from a suburban Washington, D.C. car rental agency co-owned by Nigerian-born Okolo, a resident alien.
The initial credit card security for the car was provided by the aforementioned Richard Detore who was associated with USAG, an aeronautics company that Traficant hoped would be able to provide jobs for people in his congressional district.
Okolo handled the transaction and was aware that although Detore was allowing his credit card to be used to secure the auto, Traficant was listed as the additional driver and it was understood that Traficant would pay for the actual rental when he returned the car.
However, Okolo was out of the office when the congressman returned the car and an employee improperly charged the rental to Detore's credit card (and, in fact, was reprimanded for doing so when the mistake was brought to Okolo's attention by Detore and Traficant).
And as Okolo later pointed out, the rental forms noted that Detore's credit card number was marked clearly—from the beginning—for security purposes (not payment) only.
Sometime after this transaction, Okolo was charged with bank fraud relating to a number of problematic transactions involving the affairs of his business partnership with several others, and he opted to take a plea bargain agreement with the government and as a consequence was sent to federal prison at Allenwood, Pennsylvania.
Okolo had absolutely no relationship to the then ongoing Justice Department inquiry aimed at Traficant. However, in July of 2001, federal agents contacted him. Through their own inquiries into Traficant's affairs, they had learned that Okolo had rented the car to Traficant. Present were Okolo's lawyer and an officer of the federal Bureau of Prisons.
The federal agents told Okolo that if he were to testify that the intent was for the car rental to have actually been paid for by Detore—in other words, that it was a disguised bribe for Traficant—that they could make his problems "go away."
Okolo asked the agents what would happen to Detore and he was told that Detore would be charged with a crime involving his dealings with Traficant and that the government would then ask Detore to testify against Traficant.
But Okolo refused to lie about his dealings with Traficant and Detore and his own problems consequently got worse: he was indicted on yet a second bank fraud charge after the federal authorities put pressure on his wife and former business associates to testify against him.
By the fall of 2002 Okolo found himself joined as an inmate at Allen by none other than Jim Traficant, who had finally been brought down through similar corrupt practices by the Justice Department.
However, less than a month after he spoke to Traficant and told Traficant how he had inadvertently become a part of the Justice Department campaign against the congressman, Okolo found himself "put on the bus" and, according to an affidavit Okolo filed with the Nigerian government, " I was moved from prison to prison among 10 or 11 facilities in the Bureau of Prisons system for almost an entire year, during which time I was reported ‘in transit' and wound up visiting death row in Baltimore."
In March of 2005 Okolo was deported to Nigeria before his U.S. imprisonment was scheduled to end, but, as Okolo said in his affidavit, "If I had lied, like so many others in Congressman Traficant's case, I would still be in the United States, with no legal or criminal or IRS problems. I want to be heard, and America should insist that I be allowed to return to my family."
In the end, Okolo was told that if he didn't recant the things he charged in his affidavit the U.S. immigration authorities would begin deportation proceedings against his 70-year-old parents.
And it should be noted, for the record—as described in a full chapter in the book Target: Traficant [See ad on page 14.—Ed.]—that Richard Detore (who was central to the scenario outlined by the Nigerian man) also refused to make false charges against Traficant.
Detore told the Justice Department—in words to this effect: "I didn't bribe Traficant nor did I try to bribe him nor do I have any knowledge of any effort by anybody else to bribe Traficant. I haven't committed a crime and I don't know of any crimes committed by Jim Traficant and I'm not going to testify and say that Traficant committed a crime."
What happened to Mr. Detore? He was indicted for conspiring to bribe Traficant.
However, Detore did not testify at Traficant's trial because, at that time, he was facing a separate trial in another case and was urged by his attorneys not to. Although that legal advice may have been justified, in that instance, Detore later charged that his attorneys, in other matters, had otherwise betrayed him and he sought new legal counsel.
Then, afterward, he did testify on Traficant's behalf before Congress when the House Ethics Committee was holding hearings in preparation for the expulsion of Traficant from the House following his conviction. And by doing so, Detore was risking his own legal status, since anything he said in that testimony could potentially be used against him in his own upcoming trial.
However, Detore went public, before Congress, and said, essentially, "The only people who are guilty of anything here are the FBI and the Justice Department attorneys who told me that if I didn't lie against Traficant that I would be indicted and possibly be convicted and sent to jail."
People who saw the testimony said that it was overwhelming to watch and that Detore was clearly telling the truth. And those who have read the testimony concur that the substance of Detore's testimony conclusively pointed toward illegal government maneuvering against Traficant (and Detore and Okolo) in criminal violation of all standards of the law and justice.
Yet, despite Detore's testimony, the House Ethics Committee voted to recommend that the full House expel Traficant from Congress, which, of course, did indeed happen.
And by the way, when Detore finally went to trial, he was unanimously acquitted.
Jim Traficant's own words summarize it best:
What has happened to America? The government is starting to pressure sons against fathers, mothers to testify against their sons. Don't we have enough history to recognize there was another nation that did that and they killed many innocent people, didn't they? I think it's time we send a message.
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|
Easily 100,000 protesters showed up for the "Tea Party" demonstration at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 12. Fed up with President Obama's left-leaning policies, huge budget deficits, and overall bankrupting of this country, throngs of angry patriots made their sentiments felt as they cheered speakers like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.).
Tens of thousands of yellow flags bearing the "Do Not Tread On Me" snake flooded the Mall, sending a clear message it's time for a revolution. Hundreds of signs and countless thousands of American flags, some upside down to indicate a nation in distress, filled the air. Tea Party attendees want their country back from the crooks who are bankrupting the nation and are slowly stealing every right we have.
Strong criticism of Obama's socialist health plan was expressed on many signs as well as references to Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) recent "You lie" remark, doubts about Obama's birth status, and even pictures of the president made up as a clown, seemed to show up everywhere.
The huge turnout surprised most people including the organizers, who had anticipated 25,000 to 50,000 protesters. An unofficial estimate of the crowd size, based upon a formula the U.S. Park Service uses to estimate crowd sizes on the Mall, places the crowd at between 120,000 and 200,000 people.
One of the speakers announced that ABC News had just said that there were 1.5 million protesters at the rally. Although that estimate seemed on the high side, the mainstream papers reported the following day that only "tens of thousands" of protesters were there. Of course that could mean as many as 90,000, which would still be a low estimate. But it seems more likely that the mainstream media is deliberately trivializing the number of people who attended the event.
The crowd was loud. The crowd was angry. The mainstream media and the establishment that they represent should be getting a bit nervous about this. Not since the massive anti-war protests of the 1960s have we seen consistently large protests by American citizens.
The crowd was overwhelmingly white and conservative/populist spanning across all age groups. The sentiment of the crowd was reflected in Rep. Price's remark: "The protest rally is a declaration by a new generation of patriots to carry that torch of liberty to take our country back." Sen. DeMint suggested that, "It is time that the President started listening to us."
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 girl has been forced to attend public school by a judge who was concerned that she was a Christian who needed exposure to "world views." As is true of properly homeschooled children, Amanda Kurowski was significantly ahead of her public school peers academically, but the court ruled her Christian faith was "too rigid."
Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs . . . suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," said District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler.
So Amanda was forced into the fifth grade at an elementary school in Meredith, N.H. on Sept. 1. There have been other cases where courts intervened when parents refused medical care for their children because of religious beliefs. But the New Hampshire case is the first time a court ruled that "extreme" religious views alone were enough reason to interfere. The girl's divorced father had asked the court to force her into a public school.
"Exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world that requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view," Judge Sadler said.
Her ruling said the child "appeared to reflect the mother's rigidity on matters of faith." The girl would be "best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior."
According to a brief filed by the girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, a court-appointed guardian, Janice McLaughlin, dismissed critical evidence and key witnesses in the case because they were "connected to Christianity."
When the mother tried to give the guardian material on homeschooling,* Mrs. McLaughlin said: "I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian-based." Mrs. McLaughlin refused requests for comment.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., is appealing on behalf of the girl. Douglas Napier, senior ADF counsel, suggested the court has a bias against Christians.
"What if this were Muslims who don't want their children exposed to infidel thoughts"? he asked. "Can a judge come into my home—even if my wife and I agree to homeschool our children—and say it's in their best interest to put them in a government school"? He added: "Does anybody believe a public school will broaden this girl's views on comparative religious thought? The schools are the No. 1 censor of religious thought."
New Hampshire state law mandates the court must find evidence of harm to a child before removing her from a homeschool environment, Napier said.
"The judge seems to have some allergic reactions to the fact that this talented 10-year-old girl has made some decisions on her faith," he said. "The judge didn't consider and weigh the constitutional rights of the mother to raise the child in the way she sees fit."
The judge's ruling is "unreasonable and inappropriate," said Mike Donnelly, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association in Purcellville, Va.
"The fact that the court talks about the religion of the child and says it thinks the child ought to be in public school because she needs to be socialized shows they have overstepped their authority, which is troubling," he said. "The court cannot just on its own pull opinions out of thin air."
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
In the midst of a "She said-He said" debate about which documents are forged and which, if any, are real, Barack Obama, heretofore totally silent on the subject, may soon be uttering the famous Richard Pryor comedy line, "So, who [sic] are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
The news media first ignored, then sarcastically disparaged the whole issue over the past year, accepting a fraudulent "certificate of live birth" as authentic proof of barack Obama's birth in Hawaii. Also conveniently left out of daily news coverage was the sworn testimony of Obama's paternal grandmother that she was present at his birth in a Kenyan hospital on 8/4/61, as well as the mounting stack of lawsuits by military personnel demanding the truth.
The latest is Capt. Connie Rhodes, a medical doctor serving with her unit at Fort Riley, Kan. and about to be deployed to Afghanistan. Her suit is being handled by California lawyer Orly Taitz, who is ramrodding several others.
In federal court in Columbus, Ga. On September 14, Taitz asked why she had to prove a "Kenyan birth certificate" she submitted as evidence was authentic, yet her opponents didn't have to prove Obama had an authentic U.S. birth certificate.
"Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?" Land asked Taitz. He later dismissed the case on Sept. 16 exactly on that premise - that Capt. Rhodes had not brought proof that Obama was not born in the U.S.
On Sept. 4, 2009, an affidavit was filed with the U.S. District Court of Southern California wherein the affiant swears under penalties of perjury that he visited Kenya earlier this year and obtained, by paying government officials to close their eyes, the certified copy of the Obama birth certificate published here.
AFP tracked down attorney Orly Taitz in Washington on Sept. 13, where she assured us that she is convinced that Lucas Daniel Smith is everything he claims to be. Smith, 29, is originally from the state of Iowa, but in order to protect his well being, Ms. Taitz would not divulge his whereabouts. She is using the Smith affidavit in one of her many suits against Obama and told us that Obama has now spent $1.4 million of federal money in legal fees attempting to avoid facing this issue.
Taitz also has been finally awarded a trial date of Jan. 26, 2010 by California federal Judge David Carter, who, unlike so many of his colleagues, seems to be ruling without government bias. The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still a citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of American and the commander-in-chief."
If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute will have been argued in open court, and this is what Obama has paid so much to lawyers in hopes of avoiding. Witnesses under oath in front of a 12-person jury carry far more legal weight than filed motions and news stories. One of the strongest witnesses against Obama could be Lucas Smith, if he can prove his story true.
Internet news source WorldNetDaily found the Smith claim to be suspect when he attempted to sell it on E-Bay, citing his apparent checkered past and speculating that the document may be another computer creation. This challenge prompted Smith's sworn affidavit that Taitz has now filed with the court in the California case and is reprinted here. If his document and sworn testimony are proven to be false, Smith has set himself up for some jail time.
Smith has not responded to requests for interviews and remains underground. However, he did offer some words of clarification in an Internet blog. "Kenyans were amused at how gullible Americans cold be when it came to obvious things like the fact that Kenyans overtly admit to Barack Jr.'s Kenyan birth, yet the Americans continue to believe that they know better," Smith wrote. He continued:
"I delved further and found that a birth certificate was on file at the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa. I know several Americans that reside in Kenya. I asked the three that I could reachif they were aware of President barack Obama's Kenyan birth. All three said that they were most obviously aware of his Kenyan birth. I was shocked. They went to further say that they weren't much concerned with it; after all, they'd left the U.S. to start a new life abroad and didn't have much interest in what was taking place in the States. Besides, they said, who would believe them any way?
"Along with my Congolese brother Andylenny (brother in
heart, not blood) and a 1993 BMW with only one working door,
I was off to Mombasa to get myself a copy (certified, I hoped)
of Barack Jr.'s birth certificate."
|Top|
"Bilderberg directly affects how much cash is - or is not - in your pocket," AFP's Jim Tucker told a tax-protest gathering in rural Orange County, Va. on September 12. "Bilderberg is a secret group of criminals composed of international financiers and high officials of government throughout Europe and North America," Tucker said to lifted eyebrows.
Also addressing the group were Thomas Freed, author of The Simple Truth About the Income Tax (www.TaxFreedom.com) and Mark Bottarelli, author of a newsletter about investing in precious metals.
"Why have you never heard of Bilderberg"? Tucker asked. "Because the mainstream media in the United States imposed a blackout. High officials of the mainstream media - all the major networks and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times others - have attended these meetings on a promise of absolute secrecy. As one who spent 20 happy years holding high news positions in the mainstream media - The Washington Daily News, Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch and Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal, among others - I am qualified to diagnose these blackout boys as journalistic whores."
So, how does Bilderberg affect an individual's income?
"In 1988, George H.W. Bush was running for president. In a nationally televised debate with Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, Bush said: ‘read my lips: no new taxes' and this got him elected," Tucker said. "In the same year, we warned that, if elected Bush was already under orders from bilderberg to increase taxes. He did, reducing the money in your pocket, at a time when his approval rating was above 90 percent and he lost the election.
"To who? In 1991, the obscure governor of Arkansas, Bil Clinton, was summoned to the Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany. There, David Rockefeller trotted Clinton out to the golf course, told him what NAFTA was and why he would support it. Clinton beat Big Bush and NAFTA topped his agenda. As many of you know, NAFTA was to be an important step toward establishing a EU-style (American Union) where we would surrender national sovereignty to the UN."
More recently, Tucker said, Bilderberg actually put money in your pocket.
"In Chantilly, Va. in 2006, Bilderberg ordered a dramatic decrease in oil prices, fearing an irreversible decline in consumption at a time when prices exceeded $149 a barrel and the cost of gasoline in the U.S. topped $4," Tucker said. "Prices promptly dropped to $40 a barrel and gas prices fell below $2 a gallon."
Tucker also noted other dramatic bilderberg reports confirmed by history.
The downfall of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister of Britain came while her approval ratings were sky-high. Lady Thatcher had attended one bilderberg meeting. She didn't like it, said nothing and refused further invitations. This offended bilderberg and she was ousted by a member of her own Conservative Party. Years later, Tucker chatted abut this with Lady Thatcher. She said she considered it a "tribute" to be denounced by Bilderberg and spoke harshly of leaders who would surrender national sovereignty to international organizations.
Bilderberg accidentally ended the Cold War. The Bilderberg-controlled Washington Post carried a few lines of type in its society section about David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger having a meeting with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow. It was a pleasant meeting, it reported - end of story. But an examination of a lengthy account by the government-controlled press in Moscow contained much more. In the Soviet Union, a "reporter" filed one lengthy story, which was a report to the government. A much shorter version would be published.
In the lengthy report, Rockefeller and Kissinger tell Gorbachev they understand his problem in his economically troubled satellite state of Poland. Hold a public "election" and Americans would tolerate giving Poland foreign aid, Kissinger and Rockefeller said. One-third of the seats were held by the official Communist Party and would not be contested. Another one-third of the seats were held by the so-called Peasant Party, which had always voted in lockstep with the Communists. So this two-thirds majority of seats would be contested and Americans pacified.
But the Poles seized the moment and enough members of the
Peasant Party bolted and the Communists were voted out. This
set off a firestorm of freedom among the other East Bloc countries
and the Soviet Union disintegrated. But that was not what Bilderberg
intended, because wars and rumors of wars result in immense profits.
But it was the happy result.
|Top|
Things seem to be unraveling quickly for the new administration. The latest unemployment numbers are worse than the last reports. For all the billions of dollars spent and committed to fixing our economic problems, the situation is only getting worse. This was to be expected by those who understand the root causes of the problems. Throwing money around and creating more government programs is both simplistic and damaging to the economy. Of course, the administration claims that we would have been much worse off without these efforts.
You can't improve this situation by adding to our mountain of public debt for the benefit of big banks and other special interests. The American people know this. When will Washington learn?
In addition, the president's plans for healthcare reform - or health insurance reform - are becoming more and more unpopular as details are examined. But because of all the alarmist rhetoric, politicians in Washington feel obligated to pass something, even if it doesn't help. Rarely are liberty and prosperity at greater risk than when politicians feel they must "do something." It is frightening to watch D.C. toy with our healthcare for political reasons.
However, the saddest shortcoming of this administration is tis utter failure to pursue a more peaceful foreign policy. Just last week up to 90 people, apparently mostly civilians, were killed in Afghanistan in an air strike, and the violence is only getting worse. The administration is mulling over how many more troops whey will send as part of their "Afghan surge" with advisors getting it exactly backwards. They qualify sending fewer troops as "high-risk" and sending more troops as "low risk." This is not the perception at all if you were to ask the families of those being sent over. The best answer would be to stop risking any of our troop on a violent occupation, helping no one.
But all of these problems and their wrong-headed solutions come from one greater problem - which is not understanding the reasons that we are here. The economy is in bad shape because of too much government intervention producing a myriad of unintended consequences and perverse incentives. Health care is broken because the doctor-patient relationship has been broken down by hyper regulation and too much government interference. Afghanistan is a mess because they ignored the mission approved by Congress - to seek out ben Laden and his al Qaeda. They have instead gotten sidetracked with nebulous interventionist tasks such as promoting democracy and nation building. Eight years later, there is no progress.
The Soviets bankrupted themselves fighting in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan and we're about to do the same. If we would just look to history it would be self-evident that there is nothing left to win in Afghanistan, and everything to lose.
We need to understand that we don't understand Afghan culture
and politics, and for that reason alone, intervening in their
affairs is unlikely to produce positive results. The best thing
we could possibly do now is to bring our troops home, from Afghanistan,
from Iraq, from Japan, from Germany, from all occupied countries,
and concentrate on mending badly damaged relationships around
the world. Free and honest trade has always been the best way
to do that, without fail. Not understanding the benefits of peace,
freedom and nonintervention will always bring about catastrophe.
|Top|
Osler's Modern Medicine, Volume I stated: "With the greatest care, however, certain vaccination risks are present, and so it is unwise for the physician to force the operation upon those who are unwilling, or to give assurance of absolute harmlessness.
This was nearly a century ago, and not much has changed.
Given today's hysteria over a non-existent swine flu threat and possible mandating of experimental, untested, toxic and likely bio-engineered vacines, it's appropriate to review early fears about their dangers, when evidence first surfaced and concerns were raised. In 1920, Charles Michael Higgins' Horrors of Vaccination Exposed and Illustrated: Petition to the President to Abolish Compulsory Vaccination in Army and Navy (now available in a new 2008 edition) issued a public challenge to health departments when it charged in a headline: "Deaths from Vaccination Denied and Concealed - More Deaths from Vaccination than from Smallpox."
Higins charged that he could prove "from their death certificates and vital records, now concealed and withheld from the public, that there have been more deaths from vaccination than from smallpox in every year for the past 15 years in the city and state of New York."
Referring to compulsory vaccinations as "medical barbarism," Higgins petitioned President Woodrow Wilson to stop mandating them for Army and Navy personnel. He cited facts he called shocking, including death certificates of primary school aged children "all killed in one week in September 1915 from vaccination resulting in lockjaw and septicemia: and numerous others dead from "vaccine infection." Yet throughout 1915, only three people died from smallpox. Higgins bluntly stated that "compulsory disease as a condition for public schooling or for service in the Army and Navy is medically barbarous and legally unconstitutional, and should be abolished."
From the American Revolution through the Spanish-American War, smallpox vaccinations were administered. In World War One, typhoid was added, and in World War Two, shots were given for smallpox, typhoid, Typhus, tetanus, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, scarlet fever, plague, paratyphoid A and B and yellow fever. The Korean War adopted the same regimen, and Vietnam added immunizations for polio, tetanus-diphtheria, measles and meningitis.
For the gulf wars, still more were added for anthrax botulinum, adenovirus types 4 and 7, hepatitis B, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) and rabies - a virtual toxic stew. Add a dash of depleted uranium and you have "Gulf War Illness," which is having a devastating and lifelong effect on many thousands of U.S. Soldiers, even as the Pentagon continues to stonewall on the subject.
The Afghan and Iraq wars added varicella (chicken pox), hepatitis A and pneumonia, plus the upcoming swine flu vaccine. In combination, U.S. military forces now get a greater than ever toxic brew of up to 20 dangerous inoculations plus booster shots (including for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis DTaP) that assure damage to (or destruction of) their immune systems followed by serious health problems later on.
Today it's at an intolerable level. In 1988, a portion of a brief New York Times obituary read: "On April 5, Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, a physician, author and critic of the medical establishment, died after a brief illness.... He was 61 years old. Besides teaching at the University of Illinois and Northwestern University, he was best known for his 1979 bestseller, Confessions of a Medical Heretic, in which he cautioned against ‘the harmful impact upon your life of doctors, drugs and hospitals.' In a November 1984 East West Journal article, he called immunizations a ‘medical time bomb,' and said the ‘greatest threat to childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them.'"
MURDER BY INJECTION
In his Murder by Injection, Eustace Mullins quotes Virginia doctor Henry Bybee as publicly stating, "My honest opinion is that vaccine is the cause of more disease and suffering than anything I could name. I believe that such diseases as cancer, syphilis, cold sores and many other disease conditions are the direct results of vaccination." And Dr. Rebecca Carley calls vaccinations "The true weapons of mass destruction causing VIDS (vaccine induced disease.)"
Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former FDA Vaccine Control head said: "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good."
He concluded that "There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines knowthat they are worthless, but they fo on selling them anyway."
Dr. Gerhard Buchwald concluded from the results of 150 trials that "vaccination is not necessary, not useful, and does not protect. There are twice as many casualties from vaccination as from AIDS."
It appears that even if taking any vaccination shot did prevent
what it was supposed to, by submitting to it, one also makes
himself a lifelong customer of the medical profession.
|Top|
Most people are not aware that vaccines typically contain,
in addition to the viral and bacterial RNA or DNA, many of the
following fillers (according to Dr. Joseph Mercola): aluminum
hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, amphotericin
B, animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain, dog
kidney, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg, calf
(bovine) serum betapropiolactone, fetal bovine serum, formaldehyde,
formalin gelatin, glycerol, human diploid cells (originating
from human aborted fetal tissue), hydrolized gelatin, monosodium
glutamate (MSG), neomycin, neomycin sulfate, phenol red indicator,
phenoxyethanol (anti-freeze), potassium diphosphate, potassium
monophosphate, polymyxin B, polysorbate 20, polysorbate 80, porcine
(pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein, residual MRC5 proteins,
sorbitol, sucrose thimerosal (mercury), tri(n)butylphosphate,
Vero cells, washed sheep red blood cells and more.
|Top|
A nonprofit environmental group recently released a report revealing high levels of a toxic weed killer in samples of drinking water taken around the United States. Despite a few media reports acknowledging the findings, there has been no official outcry calling for limits on its use or even inexpensive upgrades to water treatment facilities to filter the chemicals out.
The good newsis homeowners can inexpensively filter out the weed killer by simply adding a charcoal filter to their water lines, such as those commonly sold in hardware stores.
However, over the summer, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a green nonprofit, charged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been underestimating the levels of the herbicide atrazine in water that has been processed by public water treatment facilities around the country. Samples had been taken from municipal drinking water sources in a number of communities, including in the Washington, D.C., area, which draws its water primarily from the Potomac River. Upriver from the nation's capital, large-scale factory farms use massive quantities of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers on their fields to grow crops such as corn and soybeans. Farmers are not the only culprits here, however. Homeowners around the United States also liberally apply the chemical for esthetic reasons to easily kill off weeds.
In most cases, reported the NRDC, levels of atrazine matched those taken directly from rivers, streams and other waterways, indicating that public water treatment facilities are no filtering the chemicals out.
Atrazine, which has been around for over 50 years, is the most popular herbicide in America. It is a broad spectrum weed killer that is sprayed indiscriminately on millions of acres of farm fields and lawns. While the company and federal officials say the chemical is considered safe for people and animals, green groups say it has been linked to cancer and hormonal imbalances in humans of all age groups, including small children.
The EPA is required by law to test water four times a year to check for levels of chemicals and other pollutants. But green groups argue that the EPA's testing is flawed because it fails to check at key times such as spring when usage of atrazine spikes among farmers and homeowners.
There is a larger issue here, however, that is being overlooked by environmental groups, the EPA and the mainstream media.
The overuse of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers has come as a result of the industrialization of agriculture, where the push for profitability means that machines, chemicals and genetically modified crops force farmers to constantly get bigger and produce ever more wheat, corn and soybeans with the help of fewer and fewer actual people. It comes as a result of a confluence of government subsidies that prop up multinational corporations and massive factory farms at the expense of people and the environment.
Author George Pyle puts it best in his book, Raising Less Corn, More Hell: "Modern trends and theories in agriculture are depopulating the countryside, spoiling the land, squandering the water, poisoning the food, deepening the global divisions between the rich and the poor and threatening whole ecosystems. These trends are promoted by the greed of agribusiness giants, aided and abetted by government."
Why do we, as Americans, swallow all of this?
It is allowed by consumers and voters, says Pyle, because "They have bought the common, sincerely held, and utterly wrong assumptions that only tons of pesticides and fertilizers stand between us and famine, that food is no different from any other consumer product in its ability to be industrialized and that decisions leading people to move off the farm... are doing everyone a favor."
And the entire U.S. establishment acts in unity to perpetuate
this belief system, adds Pyle: "American democracy is undermined,"
he concludes, "as government, academia, and farm organizations
treat the citizens of this and other nations as if they were
so many mushrooms - keeping people in the dark and covered in
manure."
|Top|
European researchers have been conducting secret experiments - tests that many charge cold contaminate the building blocksof life with so-called "Frankenstein foods" (genetically modified foods) which are outlawed in a number of countries in Europe.
In six countries in Europe it is currently illegal to grow certain genetically modified crops that have been altered on a fundamental level by scientists in laboratories. Under pressure from citizens, legislative bodies in Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary, France, Austria and Greece passed laws banning GM corn and other crops despite heavy lobbying by globalist groups and the European Union, which argue that they are safe. It is a growing trend that is being seen around the world, where citizens, who fear the unintended consequences of tampering with food supplies, have forced their representatives to take action. In cases where governments have refused, fast food chains like McDonalds and potato crisp maker Pringles have adopted their own policies rejecting their use.
In britain, where it is still legal, citizen activists have gone so far as to force advocates of Frankenfoods to go underground. As a result, scientists working with government agencies and multinational corporations have had to plant genetically modified potatoes, corn and other vegetables in secret plots in order to keep environmentalists from destroying their fields.
In the latest case, it was recently revealed that the UK's Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had surreptitiously planted a test plot of BM potatoes, which are purportedly resistant to a parasitic worn that eats the plants. The trouble with these plots is that there is a risk that pollen from the GM potatoes could travel for miles and contaminate non-GM varieties grown in neighboring fields. Cross-pollination mainly occurs as a result of insects, which travel some distance and spread plant matter. One study noted that "the risk of cross-fertilization in potatoes is increased if the GM and non-GM varieties are different but flower at the same time; if the varieties are blight resistant as the GM crop is more likely to be left flowering; or when the main pollinator is the pollen beetle which can travel for many miles, not bumblebees which tend to be more localized."
Cross contamination has become a real problem for organic and heirloom growers, who report that it is increasingly more difficult to find sees that do not contain traces of GM products.
Worse still, there are health concerns for GM potatoes. Two
studies done on animals in Britain - one of which was funded
by the British government - found that GM potatoes caused intestinal
and stomach lesions in the lab rats and mice - yet potatoes have
been safely grown and eaten around the world for many thousands
of years without the need for intervention from men.
|Top|
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does fo little good? Well, for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
But what are cancer professionals saying about the effectiveness of chemotherapy?
We will begin with two-time Nobel Prize winning Dr. Linus Pauling (1901-1994). He was a prime promoter of Vitamin C in the diet as well as the world's most outspoken advocate of massive doses of Vitamin C to prevent everything from colds to cancer. Dr. Pauling, a promoter of natural remedies other than drugs, said: "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
Ralph Moss, Ph.D., former director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center, admitted: "Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given, the exceptions being acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, non-seminomatous testicular cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor and retinoblastoma.
Dr. Samuel Epstein put into the Congressional Record, no less, on Sept. 9, 1987, that chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times.
Dr. Nixon, Ph.D., former president of the American Chemical Society, said "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."
Dr. Martin Shapiro of the UCLA Medical Center Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective."
Dr. Candace Pert, Georgetown University School of Medicine, says: "Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure. It tortures and may shorten life - no one can tell from the available data.
Thomas Dao, M.D., in The New England Journal of Medicine, March 1975, said, "Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years."
In 1971, Albert Braverman, M.D., authored an article entitled "Medical Oncology in the 1990s." It was published in The Lancet. He said, "Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors shill use chemotherapy for these tumors."
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with hopefulness undaunted by almost invariable failure.
Others in the know have called it "a scientific wasteland" and "an unproven procedure." So then we want to ask, "How can that be true of the "preferred" cancer treatment in the U.S.?"
Answer: For the love of money.
Fact is, no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't seem to work.
Dr. Ralph Moss is the author of The Cancer Industry, a shocking expose of the world of conventional cancer politics and practice. Interviewed live on the Laurie Lee show in 1994, Moss stated: "In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy actually extends life in the vast majority of cases, and this is the great lie about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and extending the lifeof a patient."
Scientists based at McGill Cancer Centre sent a questionnaire to 118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of faith these practicing cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered. They were asked to imagine that they had cancer and were asked which of six current trials they would choose. 79 doctors responded. Sixty-four (81%) said they would not consent to be in any trial containing Displatin - one of the common chemotherapy drugs they were using (currently achieving worldwide sales of about $110 million a year) and 58 of the 79 found that all the trials in question were unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity.
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled on the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major bio-hazard, requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their "haz-mat" suits and all their strictly regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human veins and expected to cure us of disease?
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering
Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association,
wrote this warning to professor Michael Gearin-Tosh about advising
a close friend to avoid chemotherapy: "If your friend touches
Chemotherapy, he's a goner.
|Top|
Swine flu is "unstoppable," declared SAGE, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, the high-level "know-it-alls" at the UN's World Health Organization (WHO) WHO declared the swine flu to have reached "pandemic levels" in June.
Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO's director for vaccine research, said the determination means that every country on the globe will need access to vaccine. Dr. Kieny said that all healthcare workers must be immunized against the disease, which so far has affected about 94,00 people worldwide, and has resulted in the deaths of about 430 persons.
SAGE also designated groups of people they want to be vaccinated, including the obese, pregnant women, anyone over six months old with a chronic health condition as well as healthy children and adults. That's all of us. Kieny said drug manufactures are expected to have produced about 90 percent of the vaccine projected to be needed in the Northern Hemisphere by the end of July, 2009.
Dr. Kieny downplayed worries about vaccines for swine flu inducing incidents of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralyzing illness, such as happened during the 1976 outbreak of swine flu.
But healthcare experts are much more concerned that a globalist health czar will decree a "world emergency," forcing you and your loved ones to be jabbed with a mysterious vaccine for a mysterious mutant flu virus - than they are about the swine flu. The trigger for mass vaccinations is any declared international health emergency, real, imagined or contrived.
Once an unstoppable pandemic or any "international health emergency" is declared , the WHO director-general can impose regulations, including "quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease." The who claims this absolute authority to order forced vaccinations around the world under Article 21 of the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005.
You say you are an American citizen; they can't force you to be jabbed with dangerous, unproven foreign substances against your will? The federal government's position is that IHRs are legally binding regulations, forming international law, thus superseding national sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.
The evidence that vaccines are not safe and effective is overwhelming.
For example, mysterious deaths and horrible disabilities - affecting
more than 100,000 military personnel from the first "gulf
war" invasion of Kuwait and Iraq alone - have been linked
to dangerous mandatory vaccines.
|Top|