Friday, March 09, 2007

Justice Dept.: FBI Misused Patriot Act

by Lara Jakes Jordan

The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States, a Justice Department audit concluded Friday.
And for three years the FBI has underreported to Congress how often it forced businesses to turn over the customer data, the audit found.

FBI agents sometimes demanded the data without proper authorization, according to the 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. At other times, the audit found, the FBI improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.
The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct.
Still, "we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," the audit concludes.
At issue are the security letters, a power outlined in the Patriot Act that the Bush administration pushed through Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The letters, or administrative subpoenas, are used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases. They allow the FBI to require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers _ without a judge's approval.
About three-fourths of the national security letters were issued for counterterror cases, and the other fourth for spy investigations.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller called Fine's audit "a fair and objective review of the FBI's use of a proven and useful investigative tool."
The finding "of deficiencies in our processes is unacceptable," Mueller said in a statement.
"We strive to exercise our authorities consistent with the privacy protections and civil liberties that we are sworn to uphold," Mueller said. "Anything less will not be tolerated. While we've already taken some steps to address these shortcomings, I am ordering additional corrective measures to be taken immediately."
Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration.
The audit released Friday found that the number of national security letters issued by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law.
In 2000, for example, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 letters. By however, that number jumped to 39,000. It rose again the next year, to about 56,000 letters in 2004, and dropped to approximately 47,000 in 2005.
Over the entire three-year period, the audit found the FBI issued 143,074 national security letters requesting customer data from businesses.
The FBI vastly underreported the numbers. In 2005, the FBI told Congress that its agents in 2003 and 2004 had delivered only 9,254 national security letters seeking e-mail, telephone or financial information on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents over the previous two years.
Additionally, the audit found, the FBI identified 26 possible violations in its use of the national security letters, including failing to get proper authorization, making improper requests under the law and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records.
Of the violations, 22 were caused by FBI errors, while the other four were the result of mistakes made by the firms that received the letters.
The FBI also used so-called "exigent letters," signed by officials at FBI headquarters who were not authorized to sign national security letters, to obtain information. In at least 700 cases, these exigent letters were sent to three telephone companies to get toll billing records and subscriber information.
"In many cases, there was no pending investigation associated with the request at the time the exigent letters were sent," the audit concluded.
The letters inaccurately said the FBI had requested subpoenas for the information requested _ "when, in fact, it had not," the audit found.
Senators outraged over the conclusions signaled they would provide tougher oversight of the FBI _ and perhaps limit its power.
"The report indicates abuse of the authority" Congress gave the FBI, said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "You cannot have people act as free agents on something where they're going to be delving into your privacy."
The committee's top Republican, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, said the FBI appears to have "badly misused national security letters." The senator said, "This is, regrettably, part of an ongoing process where the federal authorities are not really sensitive to privacy and go far beyond what we have authorized."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., another member on the panel that oversees the FBI, said the report "proves that 'trust us' doesn't cut it."
Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "commends the work of the inspector general in uncovering serious problems in the FBI's use of NSLs."
The American Civil Liberties Union said the audit proves Congress must amend the Patriot Act to require judicial approval anytime the FBI wants access to sensitive personal information. "The Attorney General and the FBI are part of the problem and they cannot be trusted to be part of the solution," said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

FDR's legacy: Tyranny

by Ellis Washington

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money. – Alexis de Tocqueville

I didn't earn it, I don't deserve it, but if the government misses one of my payments, I'll raise hell! – Grandpa Simpson (from the TV show "The Simpsons")

On Feb. 5, 2007, President George W. Bush submitted a budget for Congress to consider passing. It contained $2.9 trillion dollars in spending, not including $235 billion in additional military spending for the war in Iraq for 2007 and 2008. Regrettably, what you don't hear from Democrats or Republicans is that the overwhelming majority of that spending is against the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, yet it exists and is growing exponentially in the face of a multi-trillion dollar U.S. deficit largely being financed by, of all nations, China. What if China calls in our several trillion dollars in U.S. debt they presently hold? Bye bye, USA.
The origins of what is ubiquitously referred to as "Big Government" dates back 75 years to the first of four terms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45). FDR's legacy essentially rests on replacing God with Big Government to fulfill human needs. The church, philosophy, Jewish, Christian and other religious organizations became secondary and increasingly irrelevant in the face of this unprecedented leviathan government expansion. FDR and his socialist bureaucrats would never again rely on the religion-based charity or the church to help the people in need. The State, proud and lifted up, had ascended Parnassus as the new god of the latest, dynamic, Progressive Era and would provide all needs for everyone. FDR's legacy was his comprehensive and utter demoralization of America's can-do spirit called the "New Deal."
(Column continues below)
The Great Depression of October 1929 was a godsend for Roosevelt. America's dire economic conditions, including 25 percent unemployment (up from 4 percent) and the collapse of manufacturing output by one-third, sent prices falling everywhere – making the burden of the repayment of debts almost impossible. Heavy industry, mining, lumbering and agriculture all felt its impact. These very grave economic circumstances gave FDR the perfect pretext for fundamentally changing America from a democratic-republican form of government to a socialist state. He wasted no time. Within the first 100 days of taking office, he and his advisers quickly formulated a series of leviathan programs, and between 1933 and 1937 – with the goal of relief, recovery and reform of the United States economy – the U.S. moved slowly out of its economic malaise during the Great Depression (at least that was the rhetoric from the propaganda press).
Scottish historian Sir Alex Fraser Tyler long ago predicted a man like FDR seizing power:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The three Rs of FDR's New Deal programs were direct relief, economic recovery and financial reform. Relief was the immediate effort to help the one-third of the population that was hardest hit by the depression. Reform was based on the supposition that the depression was caused by the inherent instability of the market and that government intrusion was necessary to justify, correct and stabilize the economy, and to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor. Recovery would be a series of program initiatives that in theory pull the U.S. completely out of the Great Depression.
By 1934, the Supreme Court starting ruling against of FDR's New Deal programs as unconstitutional. In his second term, Roosevelt, flush from his 1936 landside presidential victory, was outraged and was convinced he had a mandate from the people to continue and expand his New Deal programs. This conflict between the Court and the Executive branches of government lead to FDR's court-packing bill in 1937. Although the bill failed, the Supreme Court, fearing FDR's attempt to neutralize them, began declaring his New Deal laws constitutional.
By 1942, the Supreme Court had virtually stopped its conservative "judicial activism" of striking down congressional laws passed by New Dealers. Through an unconstitutional expansion of Article I, Section 8, the Supreme Court, in cases like Wickard v. Filburn, ruled that the Commerce Clause applied to virtually any regulation allowing the necessary expansion of federal power to make the New Deal "constitutional." The fix was in, and in subsequent decades, as the federal government grew in power over the people, their constitutionally enumerated freedoms became a dead letter (i.e., Ninth and 10th Amendments, Commerce Clause protection, etc.).
Historian Clarence B. Carson captured the intoxicating optimism of the 1930s regarding government's comprehensive and exalted role to solve all the problems that have plagued mankind since ancient times, saying:
At this remove in time from the early days of the New Deal, it is difficult to recapture, even in imagination, the heady enthusiasm among a goodly number of intellectuals for a government-planned economy ... as General Hugh Johnson put it, from "the murderous doctrine of savage and wolfish individualism, looking to dog-eat-dog and devil take the hindmost."
Mr. Carson's rather dour assessment of free-market capitalism pre-FDR is exactly what made America the greatest nation in the history of humanity – each individual, limited only by his ability and imagination, had the freedom to pursue in Jefferson's words – "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" by God's power, not government's encroachment on We the People's inalienable rights.
What is FDR's legacy to America? In a word, tyranny. C.S. Lewis put it is thusly:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
FDR taught American to forsake to three things that made her great – free-market capitalism, its Judeo-Christian traditions and rugged American individualism. How? By pitting church against state, sacred against secular, men against women, race against race, rich against poor, creed against creed, Jew against Gentile, liberals against conservatives, class against class, the haves against the have nots. What is the result of this state of affairs in modern times? – Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's ass.

Dead Russian reporter was investigating arms sales to Iran, Syria

posted at

A Russian reporter who died after falling out of a window was investigating sales of weapons by Russia to Syria and Iran, his newspaper Kommersant said Tuesday.
Ivan Safronov had told his newspaper that he had "received information" about the sale of Sukhoi-34 fighter jets to Syria and S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran via Belarus.

The business daily said the arms were being sold "via Belarus to avoid the west accusing Russia of arming rogue states". Safronov, a former colonel, specialised in writing about the army and space.
Russian prosecutors on Monday opened an investigation into the "incitement to suicide" of Safronov.
But his newspaper has dismissed claims that he committed suicide, while Russian journalists union the SJR said Tuesday it might conduct its own inquiry.
"From what we know already it is clear it was not suicide," the union's Secretary General Igor Yakovenko told Moscow Echo radio.
"The chances that it was a murder linked to the exercise of his profession are very high," he added.
Kommersant said Safronov had called from a major Middle East arms fair in Abu Dhabi in late February to say that he had "irrefutable confirmation" of the sales.
On his return to Moscow he had spoken to his colleagues of the "signature by Russia and Syria of contracts for the Pantsir CI anti-aircraft system, Mig-29 fighter jets and Iskander tactical missiles," it said.
However, he told his colleagues he could not write the story immediately because he had been warned about the risk of an international scandal and an inquiry by the FSB security service for divulging secrets.
He did not say that this amounted to pressure.
In May 2006 the British defence magazine Jane's had reported a contract had been signed for the sale of S-300 SP missiles from Russia to Belarus, with the aim of selling arms indirectly to Iran.
At the time the Russian defence ministry had said that Belarus would not sell S-300 missiles to Iran.
According to Kommersant, two young students last week heard the noise of a falling body, saw Safronov lying on the snow and called an ambulance, which refused to come as it had "no time to go picking up every drunkard".
The two girls said they heard no sounds of a struggle and saw no-one leaving the apartment house after the fall.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science

by Lawrence Solomon at The National Post (Canada)

This link (click on article title) will bring you to a whole series on the "Deniers."

Global warming labeled a 'scam'

posted by Washington Times

(Note by Jeffrey Robbins: The irony of the last line is amusing too...)

LONDON -- With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times." The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit. The documentary, directed by filmmaker Martin Durkin, is at odds with scientific opinion as outlined in a United Nations report in February, which blames mankind for global warming. In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times." The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media." Channel 4 says that the program features "an impressive roll-call of experts," including nine professors, who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology. It also says the experts come from prestigious institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and universities and other schools in London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Alabama, Virginia and Winnipeg, Canada. "It's very rare that a film changes history," says Martin Durkin, "but I think this is a turning point, and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bunk," he says. His program collides sharply with the premise outlined in former Vice President Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," which presents a bleak picture of how a buildup in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide affects the global climate, with potentially disastrous consequences. "Al Gore might have won an Oscar," says Mr. Durkin, in a preview of the documentary, "but the film is very misleading, and he has got the relationship between [carbon dioxide] and climate change the wrong way around." One of the filmmaker's experts, paleontologist professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, says that global warming could be caused by increased activity on the sun, such as massive eruptions, and that ice-core samples from Antarctica show that, in fact, warmer periods in Earth's history have come about 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. Mr. Clark's findings appear to contradict the work of other scientists, who have used similar ice-core samples to illustrate that raised levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have accompanied the various global warming periods.

"The fact is that [carbon dioxide] has no proven link to global temperatures," says Mr. Durkin. "Solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit." Scientists in the Channel 4 documentary cite what they claim is another discrepancy involving conventional research, saying that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, after which temperatures around the world fell for four decades. Mr. Durkin's skeptical specialists view this as a flaw in the official view, because the worldwide economic boom that followed the end of World War II produced more carbon dioxide, and therefore should have meant a rise in global temperatures -- something he says did not happen. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" also questions an assertion by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, published last month, that it was backed by some 2,500 of the world's leading scientists. Another of Mr. Durkin's professors, Paul Reiter of Paris' Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the U.N. report a "sham" because, he says, it included the names of scientists -- including his own -- who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he says. "It's not true." Mr. Reiter says his name was removed only after he threatened legal action against the panel. The report itself, he adds, was finalized by government appointees. Yet another expert in the Durkin documentary, Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, is more circumspect. "The [climate] system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on [carbon dioxide] production would be or, indeed, of continuing to produce [carbon dioxide]." "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start," Mr. Stott says, "because you can't say that just one factor can have this effect." "At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion, and this is dangerous," he says.

Monday, March 05, 2007


by Charlotte Iserbyt

There is one common thread running through all articles and speeches by elected officials, well-known writers, and commentators in opposition to the merging of the United States into a political and economic regional arrangement known as the North American Union. To my knowledge, not one of them has chosen to use the “C” word (communism) when warning Americans of the dangers of this unconstitutional merger about to be foisted upon us without proper hearings in Congress. Excellent speeches and articles are being given and written warning us of all sorts of bad things related to this merger, including the fact that we will lose our sovereignty, but we are not being told that all these bad things are necessary for the full implementation of The North American Soviet Union (communistic/regional system). Isn’t the “C” word the one and only word which might shock Americans out of their state of conditioned apathy, thereby bringing about citizen activism which might result in killing this “regional” monster?
Morris Zeitlin, a communist writer for the Communist Party’s Daily World said in an article entitled “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark,” November 8, 1975: “We (USA) have no regional government and no comprehensive regional planning to speak of. Regional government and planning remain concepts our urban scholars and planners have long advocated in vain…In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress…”
Of interest regarding Zeitlin’s comment about “the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress…” is the following admission made by former President Gorbachev at the 2005 National School Board Association conference that “half the world’s population and two-thirds of Russia’s lives in poverty.”
The United States Government, at all levels, has since 1975 accepted wholeheartedly Zeitlin’s advice, to the extent that our country is, believe it or not, almost 100 percent socialist in its political, economic, social and environmental (sustainable development) policies. For documentation please read “Walks Like a Duck, Talks Like a Duck.”
The regionalization (consolidation) of the world is quite similar to the three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International. At that meeting, the official program proclaimed:
“Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations.” (Ed note: The third stage is taking place right now as we in the United States of America become part of a federal union, the North American Union, which will in the near future become part of a world union of socialist nations.)
Former President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev on March 23, 2000, in London, referred to the European Union (EU) as "the New European Soviet.” If he refers to the EU in that way, it only stands to reason that he would refer to the North American Union (NAU) as the “New American Soviet,” since the NAU is modeled on the EU. Gorbachev also said in his speech to the Soviet Central Committee on November 2, 1987, published by Novosti Press Agency Publishing House:
“We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
How is it possible that if American citizens or United States officials involved in putting us under the North American Union were aware of Gorbachev’s statements, they would not be very concerned regarding our nation becoming part of a communist world? Have we forgotten the many hundreds of millions of innocent people tortured, starved, murdered and incarcerated by communist regimes around the world? Authorities say “over 20 million people suffered in purges under Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin -- and that more than 10 million died before Stalin's death in 1953. Some put the number even higher.” [Read]
Do we really believe the communists have changed or gone away?
United States government officials, elected and unelected, with enormous financial assistance from the tax-exempt foundations, have for many years been working to implement unconstitutional regional planning at the local, state, national and international level, all of this required for full implementation of a One World Socialist Government. For the 3000-page transcript of 1953 Congressional (Reece and Cox Committee) Hearings to Investigate the Tax-Exempt Foundations and for superb research on the history of regional government, go to and type the following into its search engine: Reece Committee, Don Bell Reports, Maureen Heaton, the Mantooth Report, and The Emerging North American Union.
One very important government official in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, Under Secretary of State George W. Ball, spelled out very clearly what the Insiders were planning for our nation in The New York Times, 1/24/88: “…If we could internationalize by using the United Nations in conjunction with the Soviet Union, because we now no longer have to fear in most cases a Soviet veto, then we could begin to transform the shape of the world and might get the UN back doing something useful. …Sooner or later we’re going to have to face restructuring our institutions so that they’re not confined merely to the nation states. Start first on a regional, and ultimately you can move to a world, basis.” (emphasis added).
Has our education system so successfully conditioned and dumbed down Americans that they no longer are able to apply logic to the above quotes? Are they no longer capable of transferring that knowledge, processing it into new knowledge and conclusions which might help them understand and oppose the present destruction of our Constitutional Republic?
Since all regional groupings being set up around the world are based on the communistic Free Trade “redistribute the wealth” philosophy, why is it that the adjective “Communist” is never used when discussing GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA and the NAU? Those patriotic writers could at least describe those agreements as “Communism LITE,” couldn’t they?
For those Americans who recall the days of elected officials, not unelected, appointed task forces and “councils” (soviets, according to most dictionaries), running our towns, schools, counties, states, nation and world, recognizing this change in our form of government should not be too difficult.
However, for those younger Americans denied an education in American history and government due to the activities of the tax-exempt foundations, especially the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations, the loss of elected officials through regionalism does not seem to bother them. Go to and type into search engine “Kenny Hignite” and you will see a most astonishing six-page 1954 “Test on the United States Constitution” on which Hignite received a grade of 99 – “Excellent!” There is absolutely no way that Kenny Hignite, now 66 years old, having received such an excellent education on the U.S. Constitution in a public school in Central California in 1954, would not be questioning the present deliberate destruction of our representative form of government through the implementation of communistic regional government!
Those Americans under fifty years old, and too often those over 50 years old (!), will ask you “What’s wrong with members of the community or faceless state bureaucrats being appointed to assist our elected officials in their work which has become increasingly complicated?” The simple answer is “If you don’t approve of what those unelected officials are doing, you can’t get rid of them at the polls.”
Uneducated Americans will also ask you:
“What’s wrong with consolidation of school districts, services, the merging of individual school and town budgets to “save taxpayers money?” (Ed note: In Maine our Senate Education Committee is about to approve Governor Baldacci’s proposal to slash school districts by proposing 26 regional school units statewide with 26 superintendents, compared to the existing 152 superintendents and 290 school units!);
“What’s wrong with merging 16 towns under one county council as was recently proposed in Cumberland County, Maine, thereby eliminating representative government?”;
“What’s wrong with getting rid of local school boards and having our schools run by city Mayors, or contracting education out to private organizations connected with the corporations?”;
“What possible objection could you have to public school morals and values education even if those programs are forbidden to teach ‘absolute’ morals and values based on the Ten Commandments?”;
“What’s wrong with publicly-funded charter schools which have no elected school boards?”;
“What’s wrong with Cuban-style school-to-work job training replacing a K-12 liberal arts curriculum? Even if my child can’t read, I sure want him/her to be able to get a job.”;
“What’s wrong with public/private partnerships?”
“What’s wrong with the federal government mandating mental health screening for my child?”;
“What’s wrong with members of the community assisting the local police in monitoring citizen activities and/or the police handing out awards to citizens who do good deeds, as is the case with the Community-Oriented Policing System (COPS) in Maine?”;
“What’s wrong with putting the UN’s lifelong learning agenda, all community services (birth through death), under the umbrella of the school district? (Go to and type “Feld” into search engine for a remarkable research paper on the history of Community Education)
“What’s wrong with a National I.D. card reportedly designed by two Russian ex-KGB Chiefs?”;
“What’s wrong with students being required to perform community service in order to graduate?”;
“What’s wrong with federal funding of religious organizations (faith-based initiative)?”;
“What’s wrong with federally-funded school choice proposals?”;
“What’s wrong with dropping borders between states?” as is in the offing.
And, the subject of this article: “What’s wrong with regional government?” And many more “What’s Wrong With?” questions from good Americans who have, over many years, through no fault of their own, been deliberately dumbed down and didn’t receive the public education which required the likes of Kenny Hignite to know their Constitution and form of government.
How many Americans realize that almost all the programs mentioned in the above “What’s Wrong With” section have already been implemented in our schools, communities, and states and that they are based on communist/socialist collectivist philosophy? The planners are waiting only for the full implementation of the North American Union (final nail in coffin) which will allow them to write and approve, as was done in Europe, the North American Union’s Constitution (Communist Manifesto) which will include all the above “What’s Wrong With?” programs. That will be the infamous day when the U.S. Constitution is formally relegated to history’s trash bin. And, as with the EU Constitution, or the Communist Manifesto, the practice of Christianity will be outlawed… a thing of the past. All religions will be considered equal and inevitably superior to Christianity. Go to and type into search engine “Religion and Governance” an important position paper by Harlan Cleveland, notorious supporter of global government, long-time member of the internationalist Aspen Institute, and first U.S. Ambassador to the Common Market (1960), and Marc Luycx, a Belgian change agent bureaucrat. This paper was prepared by the Foreward Study Group of the European Commission and was undoubtedly used by those drafting the EU Constitution. It will give you a picture of the non-role of Christianity in world region constitutions.
Our elected officials in Congress, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, should not be immune to multi-million dollar lawsuits for injuries sustained by the citizens of this country. Is not the loss of our freedoms due to elected officials’ malpractice (lying to us in regard to putting us under the communistic regional North American Union and not holding hearings on the subject) even more important than the death of one patient due to a doctor’s malpractice, the scalding of a woman who spilled her “too-hot” coffee at a McDonald’s takeout, or the death from cancer of a woman who smoked too many cigarettes? How can we ignore the fact that 651,008 Americans have died in battle to protect and defend the constitutional freedoms which will vanish under this new international regional arrangement? Is there really no penalty to be exacted of these highly-paid Congressional traitors other than voting them out of office, which it seems is impossible to do due to both political parties having the same agenda, controlled media, manipulated political conventions, and election fraud?
Americans have been conditioned to NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, since the days of McCarthyism and the phony fall of communism, mention the “C” word. The word must, as George Orwell might have said, be removed from the dictionaries of all languages, especially English. Otherwise, we might wise up and tackle this treason with all our might and brains since we surely don't want our children and grandchildren living under any “ism” form of government, much less “communism.” The Insiders know that “communism” is the one and only word that must be banished from use. They are not concerned over excellent anti-North American Union rantings and ravings as long as the “C” word is NOT used.
The Insiders, most if not all of whom are corporate communists, have no fear of the coming totalitarian system since they have been assured they will be sitting in the catbird seat, having eliminated all economic competition and self-government (elected officials), and will have the world as their playground. The majority of the world’s population, the Insiders’ “human resources”, will be their highly trained and conditioned serfs, lifelong.
One might ask, how can this be? It is a well-known and documented fact that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution and the corporate communists and our government have been supporting the communist regime in Russia since 1917. Extensive exchange agreements covering political, municipal, cultural, economic, legal, law enforcement, education, science, sports, medicine, etc. have been signed since 1958 between the USSR and the USA, including of special importance the 1985 education agreements signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev which merged our two education systems and caused to be implemented the Soviet polytechnical work force/job quota system and the Pavlovian outcomes-based method of conditioning/training. Go to for full text of “Agreement between U.S.A. and USSR.”

Regionalism is communism no matter how you slice it. The sooner Americans get that unpleasant fact permanently entered into their brains, and process that information into appropriate action, the sooner we will be able to escape what Orwell described so well in his novel 1984:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face--forever...and remember, that is forever."

Forward this article to your friends and to your elected officials at the local, state, and national level. Of equal importance restore the "C" word to your vocabulary and use it often.
© 2007 Charlotte T. Iserbyt - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa.
Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America's Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.

Global tax scheme pushed to battle 'climate change'

U.N.-backed scientists warn of doomsday unless greenhouse gas emissions are cut
Posted: February 28, 200710:38 a.m. Eastern
© 2007
Harvard Professor John HoldrenWASHINGTON – A panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries reported to the United Nations today that catastrophic climate change is inevitable without a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions – a plan that would impact the U.S. disproportionately to the rest of the world.
John Holdren, the Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, speaking for the panel said the world must establish a consensus on an acceptable ceiling for temperature rise and find ways to cope with the damage already wrought by climate change. However, these measures will be ineffective in themselves if they are not accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions, he added.
"We don't think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach," he said.
(Story continues below)
The report was requested by the United Nations and partially funded by the U.N. Foundation. It predicts global warming trends leading to dangerous rising sea levels, increasingly turbulent weather, droughts and weather-related pestilences.
It is the latest of a stream of dire forecasts about climate change. Three weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded global warming was real and caused by human activity. Two weeks ago, the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement claiming atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years.
"Climate change is real," said Holdren today. "It's already happening. It's already causing harm. It's accelerating and we need to do something about it, and we need to do something about it seriously, starting now. Our specific conclusions are that if the world were to go past the point of an increase above pre-industrial temperatures greater than 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, we would be in a regime where the danger of intolerable and unmanageable impacts on well-being would rise very rapidly."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is considering calling a summit on climate change later this year.

Hypocrisy in the Middle East

By Hon. Dr. Ron PaulFebruary 26, 2007

Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East. The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis. Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat. The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests. A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.