by Walter Williams
February 14, 2007
Problems with our health-care system are leading some to fall prey to proposals calling for a nationalized single-payer health-care system like Canada's or Britain's. There are a few things that we might take into consideration before falling for these proposals.
London's Observer (March 3, 2002) carried a story saying that an "unpublished report shows some patients are now having to wait more than eight months for treatment, during which time many of their cancers become incurable." Another story said, "According to a World Health Organization report to be published later this year, around 10,000 British people die unnecessarily from cancer each year – three times as many as are killed on our roads."
The Observer (Dec. 16, 2001) also reported, "A recent academic study showed National Health Service delays in bowel cancer treatment were so great that, in one in five cases, cancer which was curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment."
(Column continues below)
The story is no better in Canada's national health-care system. The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute has a yearly publication titled, "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).
Canadians face significant waiting times for various diagnostics such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.3 weeks, but in Prince Edward Island, it's 9 weeks. A Canadian's median wait for an MRI was 10.3 weeks, but in Newfoundland, patients waited 28 weeks. Finally, the median wait for an ultrasound was 3.8 weeks across Canada, but in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island it was 8 weeks.
Despite the long waiting times Canadians suffer, sometimes resulting in death, under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this prohibition, a few black-market clinics service patients who are willing to break the law to get treatment. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides that a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery. According to a Canada News article, "Shortage of Doctors and Nurses Could Hurt Medicare Reforms" (March 5, 2003), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s.
There's help for some Canadian patients. According to a Canadian Medical Association Journal article, "U.S. Hospitals Use Waiting-List Woes to Woo Canadians" (Feb. 22, 2000), "British Columbia patients fed up with sojourns on waiting lists as they await tests or treatment are being wooed by a hospital in Washington state that has begun offering package deals. A second U.S. hospital is also considering marketing its services." One of the attractions is that an MRI, which can take anywhere from 10 to 28 weeks in Canada, can be had in two days at Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port Angeles, Wash. Already, Cleveland is Canada's hip-replacement center.
Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health-care systems as models for us. You can bet that should we ever have such a system, they would exempt themselves from what the rest of us would have to endure.
There's a cure for our health-care problems. That cure is not to demand more government but less government. I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local governments. And, I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Bush 2008 Budget Proposal is out
NewsMax
Whole article in link above (just click on article title)
Bush projects government spending in 2008 of $2.90 trillion, a 4.9 percent increase from the $2.78 trillion in outlays the administration is projecting for this year. However, the administration notes that the 2007 total is only an estimate, given that Congress is still working to complete a massive omnibus spending bill to cover most agencies for the rest of this fiscal year.
Whole article in link above (just click on article title)
Bush projects government spending in 2008 of $2.90 trillion, a 4.9 percent increase from the $2.78 trillion in outlays the administration is projecting for this year. However, the administration notes that the 2007 total is only an estimate, given that Congress is still working to complete a massive omnibus spending bill to cover most agencies for the rest of this fiscal year.
President's Budget Does Not Threaten the Safety Net (RE: 2005-6 budget)
By Brian Riedl Heritage Foundation
Spending Trends
Table 1 (click on Article title for link to table) shows poverty relief spending since President Bush took office in 2001.
Table 1: Anti-Poverty Spending Is Up 42 percent under President Bush
The 42 percent increase under President Bush translates to an average annual increase of 9.2 percent. By comparison, these programs grew by an average of 5.5 percent annually under President Clinton.[1] Critics may suggest that increased poverty has driven costs up since 2001. Despite the recession, however, poverty rates have increased by less than one percent under President Bush and remain lower than the average poverty rates under the Clinton Administration. Nonetheless, poverty-relief programs have grown faster under President Bush.
Results Matter More
These spending numbers are not intended to prove that President Bush has been “better” on poverty issues than other presidents. Government programs should be judged by their results and value, not just by their budgets. From the 1960s through the mid-1990s, Washington spent more than $5 trillion on anti-poverty programs that did not make a dent in the poverty rate. Record-low poverty rates were finally achieved in the late 1990s not because of extra federal funding, but as a result of welfare reforms moving low-income individuals out of the welfare system and into the workforce while also promoting family formation.[2] Those who judge America’s progress against poverty by spending levels confuse inputs with outputs.
What’s Really in the Budget
Despite critics’ claims of major cuts, President Bush’s budget actually increases spending on poverty programs by 2 percent. After expanding 42 percent since 2001, these programs certainly can stand to grow a little more slowly than before. The budget’s proposals to save money from these programs are designed to increase efficiency and better serve targeted populations, not to reduce benefits. For example, the President proposes saving $60 billion from Medicaid over the decade by restructuring prescription drug payment formulas as well as by cracking down on state schemes to defraud the program. He then proposes $16 billion in new Medicaid and S-CHIP spending and a $120 billion in new health tax incentives. This is a net expansion of assistance.
And although some anti-poverty programs are reduced, they are by no means singled out. The President calls for a crackdown on corporate welfare by shaving $8 billion over the next decade from farm subsidies for large agribusinesses and by eliminating the Advanced Technology Program, which subsidizes dozens of Fortune 500 companies. In order to reduce runaway spending and budget deficits, additional spending cuts are spread across programs such as energy, justice, transportation, and water projects.
Conclusion
Budgets are about setting priorities, and all programs must be on the table in order to restrain federal spending. That said, the large increases in poverty-relief spending since 2001—and the additional (albeit smaller) increase proposed for 2006—show that the President is not disproportionately targeting poor families for budget cuts. More importantly, vital programs that have succeeded in reducing poverty will continue to operate effectively.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] Calculated from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006: Historical Tables. Medicaid figures are from Table 8.5, while other costs represents budget functions 604, 605 and 609 in Table 3.2.
[2]See Robert Rector, “Understanding Poverty and Economic Inequality in the United States,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1796, September 15, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm.
Spending Trends
Table 1 (click on Article title for link to table) shows poverty relief spending since President Bush took office in 2001.
Table 1: Anti-Poverty Spending Is Up 42 percent under President Bush
The 42 percent increase under President Bush translates to an average annual increase of 9.2 percent. By comparison, these programs grew by an average of 5.5 percent annually under President Clinton.[1] Critics may suggest that increased poverty has driven costs up since 2001. Despite the recession, however, poverty rates have increased by less than one percent under President Bush and remain lower than the average poverty rates under the Clinton Administration. Nonetheless, poverty-relief programs have grown faster under President Bush.
Results Matter More
These spending numbers are not intended to prove that President Bush has been “better” on poverty issues than other presidents. Government programs should be judged by their results and value, not just by their budgets. From the 1960s through the mid-1990s, Washington spent more than $5 trillion on anti-poverty programs that did not make a dent in the poverty rate. Record-low poverty rates were finally achieved in the late 1990s not because of extra federal funding, but as a result of welfare reforms moving low-income individuals out of the welfare system and into the workforce while also promoting family formation.[2] Those who judge America’s progress against poverty by spending levels confuse inputs with outputs.
What’s Really in the Budget
Despite critics’ claims of major cuts, President Bush’s budget actually increases spending on poverty programs by 2 percent. After expanding 42 percent since 2001, these programs certainly can stand to grow a little more slowly than before. The budget’s proposals to save money from these programs are designed to increase efficiency and better serve targeted populations, not to reduce benefits. For example, the President proposes saving $60 billion from Medicaid over the decade by restructuring prescription drug payment formulas as well as by cracking down on state schemes to defraud the program. He then proposes $16 billion in new Medicaid and S-CHIP spending and a $120 billion in new health tax incentives. This is a net expansion of assistance.
And although some anti-poverty programs are reduced, they are by no means singled out. The President calls for a crackdown on corporate welfare by shaving $8 billion over the next decade from farm subsidies for large agribusinesses and by eliminating the Advanced Technology Program, which subsidizes dozens of Fortune 500 companies. In order to reduce runaway spending and budget deficits, additional spending cuts are spread across programs such as energy, justice, transportation, and water projects.
Conclusion
Budgets are about setting priorities, and all programs must be on the table in order to restrain federal spending. That said, the large increases in poverty-relief spending since 2001—and the additional (albeit smaller) increase proposed for 2006—show that the President is not disproportionately targeting poor families for budget cuts. More importantly, vital programs that have succeeded in reducing poverty will continue to operate effectively.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] Calculated from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006: Historical Tables. Medicaid figures are from Table 8.5, while other costs represents budget functions 604, 605 and 609 in Table 3.2.
[2]See Robert Rector, “Understanding Poverty and Economic Inequality in the United States,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1796, September 15, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm.
Presidential Frontrunners (from both parties) Would Surrender America's Borders
by Chuck Baldwin February 6, 2007
Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.
Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.
Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo to obtain the nomination.
It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone one believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.
Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men, one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.
Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly where we are now.
So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter (or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his) followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.
By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list. Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it. And I mean very soon.
Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders, stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving down our throats.
Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.
Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.
Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.
Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo to obtain the nomination.
It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone one believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.
Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men, one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.
Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly where we are now.
So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter (or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his) followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.
By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list. Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it. And I mean very soon.
Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders, stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving down our throats.
Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.
Whose Side Is Bush On?
by Chuck Baldwin January 31, 2007
There was someone in the gallery during President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech that he would not dare publicly recognize. Even though he knew she was there, I'm confident he never even bothered to look up at Gallery 5, Row B, Seat 9, because sitting in that seat was Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. She was the invited guest of Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Representative Rohrabacher is incensed at Bush's Justice Department for imprisoning Ramos and former Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler.
In case you missed the story, the two BP agents intercepted a Mexican drug smuggler who brought more than 700 pounds of marijuana (that we know of) across the border into the United States. In the process of attempting to capture the criminal, he pointed something at the agents, and they opened fire. He was apparently hit in the buttocks, as he turned to run. However, the smuggler appeared to not be injured, as he continued to run swiftly back into Mexico and into a waiting van. Both van and smuggler raced out of sight. The smuggler's weapon was not found.
Why, you ask, were the two agents imprisoned (for a term of more than 11 years each, no less)? For firing their weapons and not filing the proper paperwork. You read it right.
"TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 1,500 agents, argued failure to report the discharge of a firearm is an administrative offense that, at the most, merits a five-day suspension," reports World Net Daily.
"How that translates into 11-and 12-year prison terms is beyond me," Bonner said.
Making matters worse, the Mexican drug smuggler was even granted full immunity by the Justice Department and brought back at U.S. taxpayers' expense to testify against the agents. He is even being allowed to sue the two agents for over $5 million for having his "civil rights" violated. No, he is not an American citizen. He is a Mexican criminal who entered the United States illegally for the express purpose of smuggling drugs.
More than 70 lawmakers signed a petition pleading with President Bush to pardon the two agents. To no avail. Agents Ramos and Compean began their prison terms on January 17.
Representative Rohrabacher called President Bush a "disgrace" for refusing to pardon the two BP agents. About Bush, he said, "This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen." He further said, "He [Bush] obviously thinks more of his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."
Rep. Joe Wilson said, "Convicting Ramos and Compean is a slap in the face to every American who respects the rule of law and expects our government to enforce its own laws."
However, the story gets even more bizarre. Writing for World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi reports, "New evidence suggests prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of El Paso lied about how the government found the fleeing illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, according to a Border Patrol advocate closely following the case of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean.
"Contrary to claims, no Mexican attorney was involved as an intermediary offering to reveal the identity of the drug smuggler and bring him back to the U.S. in exchange for given immunity to testify against Border Patrol, contended Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol.
"'It's shocking how much lying Johnny Sutton has done about Aldrete-Davila,' he told WND."
Ramirez said emphatically, "If the truth about how the government got their hands on Aldrete-Davila had been told to the jury, there is no way the jury would have believed a word of his story that he was unarmed."
Obviously, much of the prosecutor's cased hinged on the testimony of the drug smuggler that he was not armed. In the end, the jury had to decide in favor of a U.S. Attorney and a Mexican drug smuggler or the two Border Patrol agents. Pathetically, they chose to believe the Mexican criminal and the collaborating U.S. Attorney.
Worse still, President Bush ignored the pleas of members of Congress and the thousands of American citizens begging him to pardon the two agents.
In response to Bush's decision to leave the two BP agents behind bars, Rohrabacher's spokeswoman, Tara Setmayer, said that the "lives of two brave men, her husband Ignacio Ramos and Border Patrol agent Jose Compean, have been destroyed by an inexplicable policy of open borders and amnesty this administration has toward our southern border.
"If the Bush administration cared about securing our borders, these two law enforcement officers would not be behind bars, and U.S. prosecuting attorneys wouldn't be prosecuting Border Patrol agents while drug smugglers go free."
Congressman Rohrabacher even went so far as to say, "He [President Bush] talks about being a Christian, but he has shown no Christian charity." He went on to say that because of the decision of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents, "The word is out that the southern border is undefended. Border agents won't dare to draw their weapons, and the drug cartel will double their effort to drive a wedge in our border."
Makes one wonder whose side George W. Bush is on, doesn't it?
There was someone in the gallery during President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech that he would not dare publicly recognize. Even though he knew she was there, I'm confident he never even bothered to look up at Gallery 5, Row B, Seat 9, because sitting in that seat was Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. She was the invited guest of Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Representative Rohrabacher is incensed at Bush's Justice Department for imprisoning Ramos and former Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler.
In case you missed the story, the two BP agents intercepted a Mexican drug smuggler who brought more than 700 pounds of marijuana (that we know of) across the border into the United States. In the process of attempting to capture the criminal, he pointed something at the agents, and they opened fire. He was apparently hit in the buttocks, as he turned to run. However, the smuggler appeared to not be injured, as he continued to run swiftly back into Mexico and into a waiting van. Both van and smuggler raced out of sight. The smuggler's weapon was not found.
Why, you ask, were the two agents imprisoned (for a term of more than 11 years each, no less)? For firing their weapons and not filing the proper paperwork. You read it right.
"TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 1,500 agents, argued failure to report the discharge of a firearm is an administrative offense that, at the most, merits a five-day suspension," reports World Net Daily.
"How that translates into 11-and 12-year prison terms is beyond me," Bonner said.
Making matters worse, the Mexican drug smuggler was even granted full immunity by the Justice Department and brought back at U.S. taxpayers' expense to testify against the agents. He is even being allowed to sue the two agents for over $5 million for having his "civil rights" violated. No, he is not an American citizen. He is a Mexican criminal who entered the United States illegally for the express purpose of smuggling drugs.
More than 70 lawmakers signed a petition pleading with President Bush to pardon the two agents. To no avail. Agents Ramos and Compean began their prison terms on January 17.
Representative Rohrabacher called President Bush a "disgrace" for refusing to pardon the two BP agents. About Bush, he said, "This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen." He further said, "He [Bush] obviously thinks more of his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."
Rep. Joe Wilson said, "Convicting Ramos and Compean is a slap in the face to every American who respects the rule of law and expects our government to enforce its own laws."
However, the story gets even more bizarre. Writing for World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi reports, "New evidence suggests prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of El Paso lied about how the government found the fleeing illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, according to a Border Patrol advocate closely following the case of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean.
"Contrary to claims, no Mexican attorney was involved as an intermediary offering to reveal the identity of the drug smuggler and bring him back to the U.S. in exchange for given immunity to testify against Border Patrol, contended Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol.
"'It's shocking how much lying Johnny Sutton has done about Aldrete-Davila,' he told WND."
Ramirez said emphatically, "If the truth about how the government got their hands on Aldrete-Davila had been told to the jury, there is no way the jury would have believed a word of his story that he was unarmed."
Obviously, much of the prosecutor's cased hinged on the testimony of the drug smuggler that he was not armed. In the end, the jury had to decide in favor of a U.S. Attorney and a Mexican drug smuggler or the two Border Patrol agents. Pathetically, they chose to believe the Mexican criminal and the collaborating U.S. Attorney.
Worse still, President Bush ignored the pleas of members of Congress and the thousands of American citizens begging him to pardon the two agents.
In response to Bush's decision to leave the two BP agents behind bars, Rohrabacher's spokeswoman, Tara Setmayer, said that the "lives of two brave men, her husband Ignacio Ramos and Border Patrol agent Jose Compean, have been destroyed by an inexplicable policy of open borders and amnesty this administration has toward our southern border.
"If the Bush administration cared about securing our borders, these two law enforcement officers would not be behind bars, and U.S. prosecuting attorneys wouldn't be prosecuting Border Patrol agents while drug smugglers go free."
Congressman Rohrabacher even went so far as to say, "He [President Bush] talks about being a Christian, but he has shown no Christian charity." He went on to say that because of the decision of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents, "The word is out that the southern border is undefended. Border agents won't dare to draw their weapons, and the drug cartel will double their effort to drive a wedge in our border."
Makes one wonder whose side George W. Bush is on, doesn't it?
Student Pledge to the Earth
by Jeffrey Robbins
We all need to do a better job of educating ourselves (re-educating more like it), but check out what your kids will learn among thousands of other things at school. Important to be educated as parents. Unless you don't mind humanist, socialist, communist tendencies...Start with Dewey and "The Humanist Manifesto" to understand what is being pushed...
We all need to do a better job of educating ourselves (re-educating more like it), but check out what your kids will learn among thousands of other things at school. Important to be educated as parents. Unless you don't mind humanist, socialist, communist tendencies...Start with Dewey and "The Humanist Manifesto" to understand what is being pushed...
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations
For someone wholly unknowing...some interesting tidbits as introduction. various source material
The Council on Foreign Relations
And the Trilateral Commission
There are two groups of elite men and women in particular that most American people do not know about, but which are a clear threat and danger to the freedom of the American people. These are the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.
Right now the United States is completely under the control of those who run these two organizations (David Rockefeller in particular). It is therefore important to understand these organizations if we wish to understand what has been taking place in the United States since the early 1900’s.
The resource material I am using that explains in depth what these two organizations are all about was written by Jack Newell and Devvy Kidd ("Why A Bankrupt America?", Project Liberty, P.O. Box 741075, Arvada, CO 80006-9075). Please allow me to share the main ideas with you.
Edward Mandell House
The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 by Edward Mandell House, who had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Actually, he was more than just a prominent aide of the President; he dominated the President. He was referred to as Wilson’s "alter ego" (other self), and was credited for being the most powerful individual in the United States during the Wilson Administration from 1913 until 1921.
House was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the United States. In 1912, House wrote the book "Philip Dru: Administrator" in which he stated that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." In this book, House laid out a plan for the conquest of America, telling how both the Democratic and Republican Parties would be controlled, and be used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. And he asked for the establishment of a state-controlled central bank, which were both proposed in "The Communist Manifesto". And it was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, that both of these proposals became law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed, which brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, taking this power away from the united States Congress. And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx, was also ratified.
The Council on Foreign Relations
In 1921, House and his friends formed the Council on Foreign Relations whose purpose right from its conception was to destroy the freedom and independence of the United States, and to lead the country into a one-world government.
Right from its beginning, in 1921, the CFR began to attract men of power and influence. In the late 1920’s, important financing for the CFR came from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. In 1940, at the invitation of President Roosevelt, members of the CFR gained domination over the State Department, and they have maintained this domination ever since.
Its intentions
The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope":
"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the Cfr for 16 years, warned the American people of the organization’s intentions:
"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereingty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."
And Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., summarized the organization’s purpose as follows:
"The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system, and to make the U.S. an official part of it."
In other words, the CFR’s activities are treasonous to the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to put an end to the United States of America, and to make the country a part of their global government scheme.
Its influence
In 1944 and in 1948, the Republican candidate for President, Thomas Dewey, was a CFR member. In later years, Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon were members of the CFR, as were Democrats Stevenson, Kennedy, Humphrey, and McGovern. (Note: We believe Kennedy became disloyal to the CFR prior to his assassination.") The American people think that they have a choice when they vote for a President, but the truth of the matter is , with few exceptions: Presidential candidates for decades have been CFR members.
In one of the CFR’s annual reports, published in 1978, it listed a membership of 1878 members. Eleven of its members at this time were United States Senators, with even more Congressmen belonging to the organization. 284 of its members listed in this report were United States Government officials. And the Chairman of the Board of this immensely powerful pyramid was stated as being none other than David Rockefeller himself.
The CFR not only has its members in the United States Government, but its influence has also spead to other vital areas of American life. According to Newell: "Its members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, ‘The New York Times’, ‘The Washington Post’, ‘The Des Moines Register’, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of ‘Time’, ‘Newsweek’, ‘Fortune’, ‘Business Week’, and numerous other publications are CFR members. The organization’s members also dominate the academic world, top corporations, the huge tax-exempt foundations, labor unions, the military, and just about every segment of American life."
Barry Goldwater states in his book, "With No Apologies", on page 231:
"Does it not seem strange to you that these men just happened to be CFR and just happened to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, that absolutely controls the money and interest rates of this great country without benefit of Congress? A privately owned organization, the Federal Reserve, which has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America!"
and Newell continues to write: "Not every member of the CFR is fully committed to carrying out Edward Mandell House’s conspiratorial plan. Many have been flattered by an invitation to join a study group, which is what the CFR calls itself. Others go along because of personal benefits, such as a nice job and a new importance. But all are used to promote the destruction of U.S. sovereignty."
All aspects of American life are dominated
The members of the CFR dominate almost every aspect of American life, yet most Americans have never even heard of the Council on Foreign Relations. One reason for this is probably because there are over 170 journalists, correspondents, and communications executives who are members of the CFR, and who do not write about the organization. Also, it is an express condition of membership that no one is to disclose what goes on at CFR meetings.
Congressman John R. Rarick had warned:
"The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication-media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government, and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right-to-know machinery, the news media, usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.
"The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitution Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship."
The CFR now has its main headquarters at the corner of park Avenue and 68th Street in New York City, in a building given to the organization by the Rockefeller family in 1929. Its main goal is still to create a one-world government by destroying the freedom and independence of all nations, especially the United States. And David Rockefeller continues to be its Chairman of the Board.
The Trilateral Commission
Unfortunately, the Council on Foreign Relations is not the only group proposing an end to the sovereignty of the United States. In 1973, The Trilateral Commission was founded to work for the same goal: a one-world government.
The Trilateral Commission's roots stem from the book, "Between Two Ages", written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. In this book, Brzezinski praised Marxism, thought of the United States as obsolete, and praised the formation of a one-world government. His thinking closely parallels that of CFR founder Edward Mandell house.
Marxism
On page 72, Brzezinski writes: "Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief."
On page 83, he states: "Marxism disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world."
On page 123, we find: "Marxism supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality."
What Mr. Brzezinski fails to tell his readers is that approximately 100 million human beings have been murdered under Marxism "in the form of Communism" just in this Twentieth Century. It has enslaved a billion more, and has been responsible for those who live in Communist-dominated countries. There is nothing like being brainwashed!
For world government
Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Between Two Ages" was published in 1970 while he was a professor in New York City. David Rockefeller read the book and, in 1973, launched the new Trilateral Commission, whose purposes include linking North America, Western Europe, and Japan "in their economic relations, their political and defense relations, their relations with developing countries, and their relations with Communist countries."
As Newell writes: "The original literature of The Trilateral Commission also states, exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced Communist States could become partners in the alliance leading to world government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's proposal."
Rockefeller appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the Director of The Trilateral Commission.
Jimmy Carter
In 1973, Jimmy Carter became a student of Brzezinski, and a founding member of the Trilateral Commission.
On March 21, 1978, "The New York Times" featured an article about Zbigniew Brzezinski's close relationship with the President. In part, it reads: "The two men met for the first time four years ago when mr. Brzezinski was executive director of The Trilateral Commission… and had the foresight to ask the then obscure former Governor of Georgia to join its distinguished ranks. Their initial teacher-student relationship blossomed during the campaign, and appears to have grown closer still."
To think that the teacher in this relationship praised Marxism, and wanted to form a one-world government. And the student was to become ghe President of the united States.
During the 1976 political campaign, Carter repeatedly told the nation that he was going to get rid of the Establishment Insiders if he became president. But when he took office, he promptly filled his Administration with members of the Council on Foreign Relations (284 to be exact) and The Trilateral Commission, the two most prominent insider organizations in America. Included in this list of members of The Trilateral Commission were Walter Mondale and Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Beginning with Jimmy Carter, all the recent presidents, including president Clinton, have promptly filled their administrations with members of the Council on Foreign relations and The Trilateral Commission.
The effects
The common everyday American citizen does not need to be told that there is a controlled government running the United States. But when we understand exactly what the Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission are, and how its members hold key positions in the Government, it becomes all the more clear.
As Newell writes: "The effects of the Council on Foreign Relation and The Trilateral Commission on the affaires of our nation is easy to see. Our own Government no longer acts in its own interest, we no longer win any wars we fight, and we constantly tie ourselves to international agreements, pacts, and conventions. And, our leaders have developed blatant preferences for Communist U.S.S.R., Communist Cuba, and Communist China, while they continue to work for world government, which has always been the goal of Communism…
"The real goal of our own Government’s leaders is to make the United States into a carbon copy of a Communist state, and then to merge all nations into a one-world system run by a powerful few."
Barry Goldwater once stated on this subject:
"The Trilateral Commission is international, and it is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical."
As with the CFR, not all the members of The Trilateral Commission are fully committed to the destruction of the United States. Some just go along for the ride, to obtain fame, comfortabel living, and constatn flattery. But some, of course, really do run things and some, of course, really do run things and work against the independence of the united States.
In conclusion
The American people may think that they live in a free country when, in reality, things could not be more controlled. The American public must be made aware of what is really taking place in the united States.
The key to obtain our freedom, to have a true independence, is to free ourselves from the yoke of International Finance. How true it is to state that those who control the money of a country control everything in that country.
The first step is prayer: to kneel down before Almighty God and to ask Him to save America, to shower His blessings on this great land.
And second; to educate the population. Every citizen of the United States should become informed about these inside organizations, and make it a point not to vote nor to promote those, who are members for these organizations. And to demand a reform of the financial laws of the country, especially to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and to implement the philosophy of Social Credit into the laws of the country.
Make it a point to subscribe as many people as possible to the "Michael" Journal so they could become educated as to how the financial system of the United States could actually be corrected. Then the United States Government would no longer be under the control of the Bankers, but would become a servant of the American people.
The Council on Foreign Relations
And the Trilateral Commission
There are two groups of elite men and women in particular that most American people do not know about, but which are a clear threat and danger to the freedom of the American people. These are the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.
Right now the United States is completely under the control of those who run these two organizations (David Rockefeller in particular). It is therefore important to understand these organizations if we wish to understand what has been taking place in the United States since the early 1900’s.
The resource material I am using that explains in depth what these two organizations are all about was written by Jack Newell and Devvy Kidd ("Why A Bankrupt America?", Project Liberty, P.O. Box 741075, Arvada, CO 80006-9075). Please allow me to share the main ideas with you.
Edward Mandell House
The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 by Edward Mandell House, who had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Actually, he was more than just a prominent aide of the President; he dominated the President. He was referred to as Wilson’s "alter ego" (other self), and was credited for being the most powerful individual in the United States during the Wilson Administration from 1913 until 1921.
House was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the United States. In 1912, House wrote the book "Philip Dru: Administrator" in which he stated that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." In this book, House laid out a plan for the conquest of America, telling how both the Democratic and Republican Parties would be controlled, and be used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. And he asked for the establishment of a state-controlled central bank, which were both proposed in "The Communist Manifesto". And it was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, that both of these proposals became law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed, which brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, taking this power away from the united States Congress. And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx, was also ratified.
The Council on Foreign Relations
In 1921, House and his friends formed the Council on Foreign Relations whose purpose right from its conception was to destroy the freedom and independence of the United States, and to lead the country into a one-world government.
Right from its beginning, in 1921, the CFR began to attract men of power and influence. In the late 1920’s, important financing for the CFR came from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. In 1940, at the invitation of President Roosevelt, members of the CFR gained domination over the State Department, and they have maintained this domination ever since.
Its intentions
The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope":
"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the Cfr for 16 years, warned the American people of the organization’s intentions:
"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereingty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."
And Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., summarized the organization’s purpose as follows:
"The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system, and to make the U.S. an official part of it."
In other words, the CFR’s activities are treasonous to the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to put an end to the United States of America, and to make the country a part of their global government scheme.
Its influence
In 1944 and in 1948, the Republican candidate for President, Thomas Dewey, was a CFR member. In later years, Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon were members of the CFR, as were Democrats Stevenson, Kennedy, Humphrey, and McGovern. (Note: We believe Kennedy became disloyal to the CFR prior to his assassination.") The American people think that they have a choice when they vote for a President, but the truth of the matter is , with few exceptions: Presidential candidates for decades have been CFR members.
In one of the CFR’s annual reports, published in 1978, it listed a membership of 1878 members. Eleven of its members at this time were United States Senators, with even more Congressmen belonging to the organization. 284 of its members listed in this report were United States Government officials. And the Chairman of the Board of this immensely powerful pyramid was stated as being none other than David Rockefeller himself.
The CFR not only has its members in the United States Government, but its influence has also spead to other vital areas of American life. According to Newell: "Its members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, ‘The New York Times’, ‘The Washington Post’, ‘The Des Moines Register’, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of ‘Time’, ‘Newsweek’, ‘Fortune’, ‘Business Week’, and numerous other publications are CFR members. The organization’s members also dominate the academic world, top corporations, the huge tax-exempt foundations, labor unions, the military, and just about every segment of American life."
Barry Goldwater states in his book, "With No Apologies", on page 231:
"Does it not seem strange to you that these men just happened to be CFR and just happened to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, that absolutely controls the money and interest rates of this great country without benefit of Congress? A privately owned organization, the Federal Reserve, which has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America!"
and Newell continues to write: "Not every member of the CFR is fully committed to carrying out Edward Mandell House’s conspiratorial plan. Many have been flattered by an invitation to join a study group, which is what the CFR calls itself. Others go along because of personal benefits, such as a nice job and a new importance. But all are used to promote the destruction of U.S. sovereignty."
All aspects of American life are dominated
The members of the CFR dominate almost every aspect of American life, yet most Americans have never even heard of the Council on Foreign Relations. One reason for this is probably because there are over 170 journalists, correspondents, and communications executives who are members of the CFR, and who do not write about the organization. Also, it is an express condition of membership that no one is to disclose what goes on at CFR meetings.
Congressman John R. Rarick had warned:
"The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication-media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government, and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right-to-know machinery, the news media, usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.
"The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitution Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship."
The CFR now has its main headquarters at the corner of park Avenue and 68th Street in New York City, in a building given to the organization by the Rockefeller family in 1929. Its main goal is still to create a one-world government by destroying the freedom and independence of all nations, especially the United States. And David Rockefeller continues to be its Chairman of the Board.
The Trilateral Commission
Unfortunately, the Council on Foreign Relations is not the only group proposing an end to the sovereignty of the United States. In 1973, The Trilateral Commission was founded to work for the same goal: a one-world government.
The Trilateral Commission's roots stem from the book, "Between Two Ages", written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. In this book, Brzezinski praised Marxism, thought of the United States as obsolete, and praised the formation of a one-world government. His thinking closely parallels that of CFR founder Edward Mandell house.
Marxism
On page 72, Brzezinski writes: "Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief."
On page 83, he states: "Marxism disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world."
On page 123, we find: "Marxism supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality."
What Mr. Brzezinski fails to tell his readers is that approximately 100 million human beings have been murdered under Marxism "in the form of Communism" just in this Twentieth Century. It has enslaved a billion more, and has been responsible for those who live in Communist-dominated countries. There is nothing like being brainwashed!
For world government
Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Between Two Ages" was published in 1970 while he was a professor in New York City. David Rockefeller read the book and, in 1973, launched the new Trilateral Commission, whose purposes include linking North America, Western Europe, and Japan "in their economic relations, their political and defense relations, their relations with developing countries, and their relations with Communist countries."
As Newell writes: "The original literature of The Trilateral Commission also states, exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced Communist States could become partners in the alliance leading to world government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's proposal."
Rockefeller appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the Director of The Trilateral Commission.
Jimmy Carter
In 1973, Jimmy Carter became a student of Brzezinski, and a founding member of the Trilateral Commission.
On March 21, 1978, "The New York Times" featured an article about Zbigniew Brzezinski's close relationship with the President. In part, it reads: "The two men met for the first time four years ago when mr. Brzezinski was executive director of The Trilateral Commission… and had the foresight to ask the then obscure former Governor of Georgia to join its distinguished ranks. Their initial teacher-student relationship blossomed during the campaign, and appears to have grown closer still."
To think that the teacher in this relationship praised Marxism, and wanted to form a one-world government. And the student was to become ghe President of the united States.
During the 1976 political campaign, Carter repeatedly told the nation that he was going to get rid of the Establishment Insiders if he became president. But when he took office, he promptly filled his Administration with members of the Council on Foreign Relations (284 to be exact) and The Trilateral Commission, the two most prominent insider organizations in America. Included in this list of members of The Trilateral Commission were Walter Mondale and Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Beginning with Jimmy Carter, all the recent presidents, including president Clinton, have promptly filled their administrations with members of the Council on Foreign relations and The Trilateral Commission.
The effects
The common everyday American citizen does not need to be told that there is a controlled government running the United States. But when we understand exactly what the Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission are, and how its members hold key positions in the Government, it becomes all the more clear.
As Newell writes: "The effects of the Council on Foreign Relation and The Trilateral Commission on the affaires of our nation is easy to see. Our own Government no longer acts in its own interest, we no longer win any wars we fight, and we constantly tie ourselves to international agreements, pacts, and conventions. And, our leaders have developed blatant preferences for Communist U.S.S.R., Communist Cuba, and Communist China, while they continue to work for world government, which has always been the goal of Communism…
"The real goal of our own Government’s leaders is to make the United States into a carbon copy of a Communist state, and then to merge all nations into a one-world system run by a powerful few."
Barry Goldwater once stated on this subject:
"The Trilateral Commission is international, and it is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical."
As with the CFR, not all the members of The Trilateral Commission are fully committed to the destruction of the United States. Some just go along for the ride, to obtain fame, comfortabel living, and constatn flattery. But some, of course, really do run things and some, of course, really do run things and work against the independence of the united States.
In conclusion
The American people may think that they live in a free country when, in reality, things could not be more controlled. The American public must be made aware of what is really taking place in the united States.
The key to obtain our freedom, to have a true independence, is to free ourselves from the yoke of International Finance. How true it is to state that those who control the money of a country control everything in that country.
The first step is prayer: to kneel down before Almighty God and to ask Him to save America, to shower His blessings on this great land.
And second; to educate the population. Every citizen of the United States should become informed about these inside organizations, and make it a point not to vote nor to promote those, who are members for these organizations. And to demand a reform of the financial laws of the country, especially to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and to implement the philosophy of Social Credit into the laws of the country.
Make it a point to subscribe as many people as possible to the "Michael" Journal so they could become educated as to how the financial system of the United States could actually be corrected. Then the United States Government would no longer be under the control of the Bankers, but would become a servant of the American people.
Hugo Chavez Becoming a Dictator
I would actually call this what it is.... an accelerating march toward communism.
NewsMax.com WiresFriday, Jan. 19, 2007
CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuela's National Assembly gave initial approval Thursday to a measure that would let President Hugo Chavez enact laws by decree for 1 1/2 years, a key step in what the leftist calls an accelerating march toward socialism.
The law is expected to easily win final approval next week by a legislature filled with Chavez allies. Among the laws planned by Chavez are moves to nationalize Venezuela's main telecommunications company and the electricity and natural gas sectors.
"This process is unstoppable," lawmaker Juan Montenegro Nunez told the National Assembly. "This process is a historic necessity."
Emboldened by landslide re-election last month, Chavez said Wednesday night that he was seeking special powers to approve "revolutionary laws" that would mean political, economic, social, national security and defense reforms.
The National Assembly has been entirely filled with Chavez's allies since opposition parties boycotted 2005 elections, citing concerns about fairness. Chavez has said his opponents pulled out of those elections because they knew they had little support.
Opposition politician Gerardo Blyde criticized the proposed law, saying "what is becoming evident is that all the powers are one single power in Venezuela — Hugo Chavez."
Separately, Chavez has formed a commission to recommend sweeping changes to the country's constitution.
He said Venezuelans would decide whether to approve constitutional reforms in a referendum, and that the vote would likely be held by the end of this year.
NewsMax.com WiresFriday, Jan. 19, 2007
CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuela's National Assembly gave initial approval Thursday to a measure that would let President Hugo Chavez enact laws by decree for 1 1/2 years, a key step in what the leftist calls an accelerating march toward socialism.
The law is expected to easily win final approval next week by a legislature filled with Chavez allies. Among the laws planned by Chavez are moves to nationalize Venezuela's main telecommunications company and the electricity and natural gas sectors.
"This process is unstoppable," lawmaker Juan Montenegro Nunez told the National Assembly. "This process is a historic necessity."
Emboldened by landslide re-election last month, Chavez said Wednesday night that he was seeking special powers to approve "revolutionary laws" that would mean political, economic, social, national security and defense reforms.
The National Assembly has been entirely filled with Chavez's allies since opposition parties boycotted 2005 elections, citing concerns about fairness. Chavez has said his opponents pulled out of those elections because they knew they had little support.
Opposition politician Gerardo Blyde criticized the proposed law, saying "what is becoming evident is that all the powers are one single power in Venezuela — Hugo Chavez."
Separately, Chavez has formed a commission to recommend sweeping changes to the country's constitution.
He said Venezuelans would decide whether to approve constitutional reforms in a referendum, and that the vote would likely be held by the end of this year.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
North American Union Isn't Going Away
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jan 09, 2007
Michael Medved has now published a second tirade on the issue of North American integration, this time attacking both Joseph Farah and me by name. John Hawkins has also responded briefly on his blog, taking the opportunity to issue yet another ad hominem attack, this time calling me “crazy.” Neither gentleman has yet responded to the substantive arguments or evidence that many of us have produced, demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that North American integration is proceeding full speed ahead in the Bush Administration.Maybe Medved and Hawkins should include the Wall Street Journal in their list of those at whom they cast a flurry of personal abuse and invective. As early as July 2, 2001, Robert L. Bartley, then-editor of the Wall Street Journal, directly supported the idea of creating a North American Union in no uncertain terms, writing an editorial titled, “Open Nafta Borders? Why Not.” Bartley wrote:
Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two Nafta should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grand that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.Michael Medved wrote, “If the plans for a North American Union are coming from forces on the left as marginal as the fringies on the right who worry about such schemes, then there is, indeed, no reason for fear.” Perhaps Medved will want to revise this claim in view of the Wall Street Journal quotation his evidently deficient research failed to uncover.Bartlet’s Wall Street Journal editorial also tied his vision of a European Union evolving out of NAFTA with his endorsement of an amnesty combined with what today we would call a “pathway to citizenship.” His editorial continued, “North of the border, the solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to make it legal, or at least to normalize the movement of people.” Consistently, I have argued that President Bush’s refusal to secure our borders stems from his agreement on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Tex., to enter the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Phyllis Schlafly has written an important piece noting that President Bush at Christmas 2006 pardoned 16 criminals, including five drug dealers. Yet, he has refused to pardon Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were prosecuted under a law intended to punish drug dealers because they attempted to stop at the Mexican border a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana.Do Medved and Hawkins support an open border policy? Do Medved and Hawkins support a guest worker program, even if the new law amounts to an amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States? Possibly, we can get Medved and Hawkins to answer these questions directly.Medved and Hawkins make much of arguing that American University professor Robert Pastor has specifically gone on the record saying he does not support the creation of a North American Union. Yet, this is only part of the story. I have consistently pointed out that even Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, acknowledged in his memoirs that he intentionally used a stealth methodology to advance his regional government goals. I have referenced an important book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, “The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union,” that presents a careful and exhaustive study of the intentional deception used by proponents to create the European Union. Medved and Hawkins refuse to respond to these points.The EU emerged from an initial coal and steal agreement through an incremental process. Then the 1957 Treaty of Rome created a European Common Market. From this, a European Community emerged. In 1991 at a meeting in the Dutch town of Maastrich, the European leaders drafted a new treaty revising the Treaty of Rome by replacing the European Common Market with a full-fledged European Union regional government. In 1999, 11 European countries decided to phase out their currencies in favor of the Euro by 2002. Those of us writing out against a North American Union and the Amero want to make sure the United States does not go through the same stealth process, a methodology even the editor of the Wall Street Journal endorsed in 2001. I have already advanced from NAFTA to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. What’s next? Medved and Hawkins are typically non-responsive to these points.Pastor’s objections to a North American Union are strictly pragmatic. Pastor has repeatedly called for the next stage to be what he calls the “North American Community.” Pastor wants to put in place a series of institutional structures, including his North American Development Fund,” all resulting in greater North American economic and political integration, such that we all begin to think like “North Americans” rather than citizens of the U.S. Canada, and Mexico. I interviewed Pastor by telephone on Dec. 13, 2006, after Pastor gave an interview in Spanish to the magazine Poder y Negocios. In that magazine interview, Pastor had argued in Spanish that a new 9/11 crisis might be needed to further North American integration. Pastor also expressed frustration that the lame-duck nature of the Bush Administration, the minority government in Canada, and the challenge from the left to Mexico’s new president, Felipe Calderón, were blocking the three governments from moving toward integration fast enough. With Pastor’s permission, I recorded my interview with him. I am going to reproduce here from the transcript a relevant segment of my interview with Pastor, in which I asked him a number of questions to determine if his objection to a North American Union was on pragmatic grounds.
A lot of what you argue is incremental. First, for instance, we have NAFTA, then the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which is in place right now. You have called the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled, Building a North American Community, a blue print for SPP. Now, you are advocating a next stage, which you call a North American Community. That sounds like an incremental advancement on North American integration, which, absent a crisis, is what you are recommending.PASTOR: Yes. What I am recommending is a series of functional steps. You could call them incremental, although I think they are a little bit more than incremental. Each of the proposals that I have laid out do represent more than just small steps. But it doesn’t represent the leap toward a North American Union, or even to some confederation of any kind. I’m not representing that. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary, or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.But, I want to concentrate on that, what you just said, “at this stage.” In your book Toward a North American Community you lay out three or four different ways that economic integration could lead to political integration, and there, as in this interview, you reject them. But your rejection is largely on pragmatic grounds, which could be summarized as “the countries aren’t ready yet.” It doesn’t sound like your saying that a political union is an inherently bad idea.PASTOR: Oh, I don’t think a political union is an inherently bad idea. Nor do I think it is a good idea for North America right now.Again, “right now” is the key part of that statement.PASTOR: I teach a course at American University in which I look at the different options and I put them before the students. The reason it is not a good idea at this state, perhaps ever, is because of people like yourself who begin to fear that their sense of America could disappear and therefore they become resistant to ideas that are as simple as obvious to me as creating transportation corridors between the three countries that trade more with each other by land than with any other countries in the world. To me that seems just straightforward. But if you’re fearful that somehow America’s sovereignty will disappear even if you just take these small steps forward, then you don’t do anything. Then you’re just mired in the status quo. Actually you’re not in the status quo, because in this world which is moving very rapidly you can’t stay competitive if you don’t move.We probably have some disagreements beyond fear. I might believe that the structure of laws we have in place in the United States is superior to what a regional configuration would be, even as demonstrated in Europe. That would be a separate argument than fear.PASTOR: That’s fair enough. I’ve just laid out one possible motive, I think there are others. And I think there are on each of these issues questions that I think should be on the agenda for discussion among the three publics. There are legitimate arguments on both sides.So, Pastor acknowledges that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the North American integration debate and, contrary to Medved and Hawkins, Pastor was not abusive simply because I disagree with him. When asked specifically if he would say that a North American Union formed as a regional political government was an inherently bad idea, Pastor declined to do so. Moreover, Pastor admitted in the telephone interview that a main reason he rejects the idea of a North American Union right now is because of the opposition I have launched, based on my desire to preserve and protect U.S. sovereignty. One suspects Pastor would have preceded full speed ahead with full political integration of North America, if he had not encountered our strong resistance. Pastor is a globalist. Later in the interview Pastor said, “Globalization is a net plus for the world economy, for the middle class, and for all people.”Medved and Hawkins make much of the argument that Pastor’s views are not influential upon public policy because Pastor, an adviser to John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign, is not part of the Bush Administration. Nor is Pastor affiliated with any Bush Administration official at a top policy-making level. Yet, during the Carter Administration, Pastor served on the National Security Council, where he played a major role in the decision to hand the Panama Canal over to Panama via a treaty that Pastor helped negotiate. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Pastor may have emerged once again with an influential policy job in the administration.Besides, do Medved and Hawkins seriously want to argue that academic arguments have no influence upon the formation of public policy? Pastor was a co-chair of the task force that authored the Council on Foreign Relations task force report titled, “Building a North American Community.” In his career, Pastor has alternated between government and academic positions, while continuing to serve non-governmental organizations such as the North American Forum on Integration, where Pastor currently serves on the board of directors. Pastor now has spent over a decade advancing his ideas about how North American integration should advance, in academics, in government, and as a key player in well-positioned non-government organizations that seek to impact public policy. So, let me ask once again, what exactly do Medved and Hawkins find annoying—that a NAU and the Amero could be the end result of the North American integration currently happening, or that I might suggest the Bush Administration could be following the Jean Monnet path intentionally? Again, gentlemen, we would appreciate a direct answer to the question.Medved clearly seems most concerned that no one should criticize Bush, especially now that the 110th Congress has begun under Democratic control. Somehow appointing himself as a cheerleader for the conservative movement, Medved argues that we need “a united Republican Party and a re-energized conservative movement that isn’t distracted and paralyzed by non-existent threats concerning non-existent plans to terminate the independent survival of the United States.”Yet, while Medved has gyrated hysterically, he has evidently not taken up the challenge to study and discuss calmly the many issues I have raised concerning government websites and other public documentation. Does Medved simply dismiss the Department of Commerce website that documents the trilateral working group activity proceeding under SPP? Has Medved ever looked at the Texas Department of Transportation website that documents the 4,000 miles of Trans-Texas Corridor super highways that TxDOT aims to build over the next 50 years with financing from Cintra, the investment consortium from Spain? Nor do I agree that Republican Party unity is either a necessary or a sufficient condition to obtaining a re-energized conservative movement. Resisting Bush on immigration might do far more to re-energizing the conservative movement than blind adherence to the immigration policies the Bush administration has advanced. Unfortunately, as the term RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) suggests, being Republican today is not by definition equivalent with being conservative. In the final analysis are Medved and Hawkins basically just Republican Party apologists?Perhaps Medved has opposed Democrats on the radio so long that he considers it his responsibility to keep Republicans in office at any cost. I disagree. One of the main reasons much of the conservative movement has parted ways with the Bush Administration over the past two years is because of Bush’s determination to pursue guest-worker amnesty legislation rather than to secure our borders. No matter how much cheerleading Medved does, much of the conservative movement will oppose Bush strongly once again if the administration moves in the 110th Congress to push a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill such as S. 2611, the immigration bill co-sponsored by Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and John McCain (R.-Ariz.). Regardless of how much Medved attacks me, many conservatives are preparing right now to oppose Bush if the administration goes down an open-borders path that many conservatives, as well as the U.S. public, have already soundly rejected. But character assassination seems to be Medved’s preferred methodology. Somewhat surprisingly, Medved has returned to mine the ground of my old Free Republic comments. Medved, who appears to have a deficiency in his ability to do solid research, may not realize that I have repudiated those comments and apologized for them long ago. As I have explained many times, the statements on Free Republic were written to be sarcastic, some of them to be ironic, others just to be provocative. The comments, as Medved presents them, are totally out of context and not reflective of my true views. On the subject of what I truly believe, I am the final authority. Let me again state for the record that my history of working to support the state of Israel attests to my true affection for the Jewish people worldwide. Nor am I anti-Catholic, since the truth is that I was born and raised in the Catholic faith, and I plan to die a Catholic as well.Medved and Hawkins obviously want the argument about North American integration to go away. Unfortunately, their main tactics to date have been to engage in an unrelenting campaign of invective and sophomoric name-calling, tactics which in truth more disgraces them than those of us against whom their vituperation is aimed. Still, I want to thank once again Medved and Hawkins for the continuing attention they are drawing to my arguments and the issue of North American integration. Somehow, Medved, an author himself, seems to object that I might make an economic living by writing. Until now, I had always assumed Medved was a capitalist, seeing how strongly he protests that he is now a conservative. Maybe that is another assumption about Medved that I will have to reconsider. At any rate, Medved should be aware that his histrionics do more to sell books for me, regardless whether Medved ever deigns to afford me the dubious honor of appearing on his radio show, or not. Far from being indignant, as Medved mistakenly assumes I am, the truth is that I am actually currently appreciative of the controversy. Medved should be advised, however, that appreciation and tolerance from those of us he is determined to malign may not be unlimited, as Columbia University may soon have the opportunity to discover.
Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Posted Jan 09, 2007
Michael Medved has now published a second tirade on the issue of North American integration, this time attacking both Joseph Farah and me by name. John Hawkins has also responded briefly on his blog, taking the opportunity to issue yet another ad hominem attack, this time calling me “crazy.” Neither gentleman has yet responded to the substantive arguments or evidence that many of us have produced, demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that North American integration is proceeding full speed ahead in the Bush Administration.Maybe Medved and Hawkins should include the Wall Street Journal in their list of those at whom they cast a flurry of personal abuse and invective. As early as July 2, 2001, Robert L. Bartley, then-editor of the Wall Street Journal, directly supported the idea of creating a North American Union in no uncertain terms, writing an editorial titled, “Open Nafta Borders? Why Not.” Bartley wrote:
Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two Nafta should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grand that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.Michael Medved wrote, “If the plans for a North American Union are coming from forces on the left as marginal as the fringies on the right who worry about such schemes, then there is, indeed, no reason for fear.” Perhaps Medved will want to revise this claim in view of the Wall Street Journal quotation his evidently deficient research failed to uncover.Bartlet’s Wall Street Journal editorial also tied his vision of a European Union evolving out of NAFTA with his endorsement of an amnesty combined with what today we would call a “pathway to citizenship.” His editorial continued, “North of the border, the solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to make it legal, or at least to normalize the movement of people.” Consistently, I have argued that President Bush’s refusal to secure our borders stems from his agreement on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Tex., to enter the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Phyllis Schlafly has written an important piece noting that President Bush at Christmas 2006 pardoned 16 criminals, including five drug dealers. Yet, he has refused to pardon Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were prosecuted under a law intended to punish drug dealers because they attempted to stop at the Mexican border a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana.Do Medved and Hawkins support an open border policy? Do Medved and Hawkins support a guest worker program, even if the new law amounts to an amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States? Possibly, we can get Medved and Hawkins to answer these questions directly.Medved and Hawkins make much of arguing that American University professor Robert Pastor has specifically gone on the record saying he does not support the creation of a North American Union. Yet, this is only part of the story. I have consistently pointed out that even Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, acknowledged in his memoirs that he intentionally used a stealth methodology to advance his regional government goals. I have referenced an important book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, “The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union,” that presents a careful and exhaustive study of the intentional deception used by proponents to create the European Union. Medved and Hawkins refuse to respond to these points.The EU emerged from an initial coal and steal agreement through an incremental process. Then the 1957 Treaty of Rome created a European Common Market. From this, a European Community emerged. In 1991 at a meeting in the Dutch town of Maastrich, the European leaders drafted a new treaty revising the Treaty of Rome by replacing the European Common Market with a full-fledged European Union regional government. In 1999, 11 European countries decided to phase out their currencies in favor of the Euro by 2002. Those of us writing out against a North American Union and the Amero want to make sure the United States does not go through the same stealth process, a methodology even the editor of the Wall Street Journal endorsed in 2001. I have already advanced from NAFTA to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. What’s next? Medved and Hawkins are typically non-responsive to these points.Pastor’s objections to a North American Union are strictly pragmatic. Pastor has repeatedly called for the next stage to be what he calls the “North American Community.” Pastor wants to put in place a series of institutional structures, including his North American Development Fund,” all resulting in greater North American economic and political integration, such that we all begin to think like “North Americans” rather than citizens of the U.S. Canada, and Mexico. I interviewed Pastor by telephone on Dec. 13, 2006, after Pastor gave an interview in Spanish to the magazine Poder y Negocios. In that magazine interview, Pastor had argued in Spanish that a new 9/11 crisis might be needed to further North American integration. Pastor also expressed frustration that the lame-duck nature of the Bush Administration, the minority government in Canada, and the challenge from the left to Mexico’s new president, Felipe Calderón, were blocking the three governments from moving toward integration fast enough. With Pastor’s permission, I recorded my interview with him. I am going to reproduce here from the transcript a relevant segment of my interview with Pastor, in which I asked him a number of questions to determine if his objection to a North American Union was on pragmatic grounds.
A lot of what you argue is incremental. First, for instance, we have NAFTA, then the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which is in place right now. You have called the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled, Building a North American Community, a blue print for SPP. Now, you are advocating a next stage, which you call a North American Community. That sounds like an incremental advancement on North American integration, which, absent a crisis, is what you are recommending.PASTOR: Yes. What I am recommending is a series of functional steps. You could call them incremental, although I think they are a little bit more than incremental. Each of the proposals that I have laid out do represent more than just small steps. But it doesn’t represent the leap toward a North American Union, or even to some confederation of any kind. I’m not representing that. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary, or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.But, I want to concentrate on that, what you just said, “at this stage.” In your book Toward a North American Community you lay out three or four different ways that economic integration could lead to political integration, and there, as in this interview, you reject them. But your rejection is largely on pragmatic grounds, which could be summarized as “the countries aren’t ready yet.” It doesn’t sound like your saying that a political union is an inherently bad idea.PASTOR: Oh, I don’t think a political union is an inherently bad idea. Nor do I think it is a good idea for North America right now.Again, “right now” is the key part of that statement.PASTOR: I teach a course at American University in which I look at the different options and I put them before the students. The reason it is not a good idea at this state, perhaps ever, is because of people like yourself who begin to fear that their sense of America could disappear and therefore they become resistant to ideas that are as simple as obvious to me as creating transportation corridors between the three countries that trade more with each other by land than with any other countries in the world. To me that seems just straightforward. But if you’re fearful that somehow America’s sovereignty will disappear even if you just take these small steps forward, then you don’t do anything. Then you’re just mired in the status quo. Actually you’re not in the status quo, because in this world which is moving very rapidly you can’t stay competitive if you don’t move.We probably have some disagreements beyond fear. I might believe that the structure of laws we have in place in the United States is superior to what a regional configuration would be, even as demonstrated in Europe. That would be a separate argument than fear.PASTOR: That’s fair enough. I’ve just laid out one possible motive, I think there are others. And I think there are on each of these issues questions that I think should be on the agenda for discussion among the three publics. There are legitimate arguments on both sides.So, Pastor acknowledges that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the North American integration debate and, contrary to Medved and Hawkins, Pastor was not abusive simply because I disagree with him. When asked specifically if he would say that a North American Union formed as a regional political government was an inherently bad idea, Pastor declined to do so. Moreover, Pastor admitted in the telephone interview that a main reason he rejects the idea of a North American Union right now is because of the opposition I have launched, based on my desire to preserve and protect U.S. sovereignty. One suspects Pastor would have preceded full speed ahead with full political integration of North America, if he had not encountered our strong resistance. Pastor is a globalist. Later in the interview Pastor said, “Globalization is a net plus for the world economy, for the middle class, and for all people.”Medved and Hawkins make much of the argument that Pastor’s views are not influential upon public policy because Pastor, an adviser to John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign, is not part of the Bush Administration. Nor is Pastor affiliated with any Bush Administration official at a top policy-making level. Yet, during the Carter Administration, Pastor served on the National Security Council, where he played a major role in the decision to hand the Panama Canal over to Panama via a treaty that Pastor helped negotiate. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Pastor may have emerged once again with an influential policy job in the administration.Besides, do Medved and Hawkins seriously want to argue that academic arguments have no influence upon the formation of public policy? Pastor was a co-chair of the task force that authored the Council on Foreign Relations task force report titled, “Building a North American Community.” In his career, Pastor has alternated between government and academic positions, while continuing to serve non-governmental organizations such as the North American Forum on Integration, where Pastor currently serves on the board of directors. Pastor now has spent over a decade advancing his ideas about how North American integration should advance, in academics, in government, and as a key player in well-positioned non-government organizations that seek to impact public policy. So, let me ask once again, what exactly do Medved and Hawkins find annoying—that a NAU and the Amero could be the end result of the North American integration currently happening, or that I might suggest the Bush Administration could be following the Jean Monnet path intentionally? Again, gentlemen, we would appreciate a direct answer to the question.Medved clearly seems most concerned that no one should criticize Bush, especially now that the 110th Congress has begun under Democratic control. Somehow appointing himself as a cheerleader for the conservative movement, Medved argues that we need “a united Republican Party and a re-energized conservative movement that isn’t distracted and paralyzed by non-existent threats concerning non-existent plans to terminate the independent survival of the United States.”Yet, while Medved has gyrated hysterically, he has evidently not taken up the challenge to study and discuss calmly the many issues I have raised concerning government websites and other public documentation. Does Medved simply dismiss the Department of Commerce website that documents the trilateral working group activity proceeding under SPP? Has Medved ever looked at the Texas Department of Transportation website that documents the 4,000 miles of Trans-Texas Corridor super highways that TxDOT aims to build over the next 50 years with financing from Cintra, the investment consortium from Spain? Nor do I agree that Republican Party unity is either a necessary or a sufficient condition to obtaining a re-energized conservative movement. Resisting Bush on immigration might do far more to re-energizing the conservative movement than blind adherence to the immigration policies the Bush administration has advanced. Unfortunately, as the term RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) suggests, being Republican today is not by definition equivalent with being conservative. In the final analysis are Medved and Hawkins basically just Republican Party apologists?Perhaps Medved has opposed Democrats on the radio so long that he considers it his responsibility to keep Republicans in office at any cost. I disagree. One of the main reasons much of the conservative movement has parted ways with the Bush Administration over the past two years is because of Bush’s determination to pursue guest-worker amnesty legislation rather than to secure our borders. No matter how much cheerleading Medved does, much of the conservative movement will oppose Bush strongly once again if the administration moves in the 110th Congress to push a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill such as S. 2611, the immigration bill co-sponsored by Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and John McCain (R.-Ariz.). Regardless of how much Medved attacks me, many conservatives are preparing right now to oppose Bush if the administration goes down an open-borders path that many conservatives, as well as the U.S. public, have already soundly rejected. But character assassination seems to be Medved’s preferred methodology. Somewhat surprisingly, Medved has returned to mine the ground of my old Free Republic comments. Medved, who appears to have a deficiency in his ability to do solid research, may not realize that I have repudiated those comments and apologized for them long ago. As I have explained many times, the statements on Free Republic were written to be sarcastic, some of them to be ironic, others just to be provocative. The comments, as Medved presents them, are totally out of context and not reflective of my true views. On the subject of what I truly believe, I am the final authority. Let me again state for the record that my history of working to support the state of Israel attests to my true affection for the Jewish people worldwide. Nor am I anti-Catholic, since the truth is that I was born and raised in the Catholic faith, and I plan to die a Catholic as well.Medved and Hawkins obviously want the argument about North American integration to go away. Unfortunately, their main tactics to date have been to engage in an unrelenting campaign of invective and sophomoric name-calling, tactics which in truth more disgraces them than those of us against whom their vituperation is aimed. Still, I want to thank once again Medved and Hawkins for the continuing attention they are drawing to my arguments and the issue of North American integration. Somehow, Medved, an author himself, seems to object that I might make an economic living by writing. Until now, I had always assumed Medved was a capitalist, seeing how strongly he protests that he is now a conservative. Maybe that is another assumption about Medved that I will have to reconsider. At any rate, Medved should be aware that his histrionics do more to sell books for me, regardless whether Medved ever deigns to afford me the dubious honor of appearing on his radio show, or not. Far from being indignant, as Medved mistakenly assumes I am, the truth is that I am actually currently appreciative of the controversy. Medved should be advised, however, that appreciation and tolerance from those of us he is determined to malign may not be unlimited, as Columbia University may soon have the opportunity to discover.
Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Hamas: We'll obtain U.S. money
read this and "Al Qaeda a Kremlin Proxy? " below and find our foreign aid (who knew!) is going directly into terrorist and Communist hands...
Washington providing $86.4 million to bolster Abbas security forces
Posted: January 8, 200712:33 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
JERUSALEM – A portion of $86.4 million in aid the United States pledged last week to bolster security forces affiliated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party will fall into the hands of the Hamas terror group, Hamas officials told WND.
Also, a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, a terror group allied with Hamas, told WND his organization is planning attacks against Israel using weapons recently transferred to Fatah by the U.S. and Egypt.
The Popular Resistance Committees leader said attacks using the foreign weapons are meant "to prove the Zionist-American conspiracy to bolster forces against us won't work."
"We will obtain the U.S. weapons," the Committees leader said.
(Story continues below)
According to documents revealed Friday, the Bush administration will provide $86.4 million to strengthen security forces loyal to Abbas, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Some members of Force 17 also are openly members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization, Fatah's declared "military wing."
U.S. officials confirmed the financial aid is set to be transferred to Fatah.
The multi-million-dollar grant will be used to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the Road Map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," a U.S. government document said.
According to reports confirmed by Israeli and Palestinian officials, the U.S. and Egypt recently transferred rifles and ammunition to Force 17.
Abu Oubaida, a spokesman for Hamas so-called "military wing," told WND his terror group will obtain any weapons transferred to Fatah militias or purchased by Fatah using the incoming U.S. aid.
"I am sure that like in the past, this $86 million from America will find its way to the Hamas resistance via the honorable persons in the Fatah security organizations, including in Force 17. I can confirm 100 percent that this money and purchased weapons will find its way to Hamas," said Abu Oubaida.
The Hamas spokesman and other Hamas officials said "scores" of Fatah militants have switched over to Hamas in recent months.
Sources close to Hamas said the Fatah militants, including members of Force 17, worked with Hamas after receiving larger paychecks from the terror group.
"When they join Hamas, they bring along their new weapons," said a Hamas source.
A senior Fatah security official in the Gaza Strip, speaking on condition his name be withheld, confirmed to WND Fatah has a "significant problem" of its militia members in Gaza joining Hamas.
In an interview with WND, Muhammad Abdel-Al, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, said his terror group would likely obtain weapons and aid given to Fatah.
"We vow to show the Israelis very soon the weapons lately channeled to the Presidential Guards (Force 17) and to the Fatah security services will be directed against the (Israeli) occupation," said Abdel-Al
"In all the security services, including in Force 17, there are activists affiliated with all the Palestinian groups, including ours, and Hamas," he said. "We vow that there will be no use (of these arms) in a civil war, as we promise that should these arms reach us, we will use them against the occupation and the Zionist enemy."
The Popular Resistance Committees is a coalition of several Palestinian terror groups and is responsible for scores of anti-Israel shootings and rocket attacks. The Committees is also accused of carrying out a bombing in 2003 on a U.S. convoy in Gaza in which three American contractors were killed.
A Committees leader told WND his group is planning terror attacks using American and Egyptian weapons recently transferred to Fatah and obtained by the Committees.
He said when the attacks occur, the Committees will announce the foreign weapons were used.
The reports of U.S. aid to Fatah comes after weeks of factional clashes between Fatah and Hamas, which have engaged in heavy firefights since Abbas last month called for new Palestinian elections in a move widely seen as an attempt to dismantle the Hamas-led PA.
According to reports here confirmed by Israel, Egypt last month transferred 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 20,000 magazines and 2 million rounds of ammunition to Fatah security organizations in the Gaza Strip to bolster the groups in clashes against rival Hamas factions.
WND reported the U.S. sent assault rifles and ammunition last month to Fatah groups in Gaza. The weapons were delivered by an Israeli army convoy, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials involved in the transfer.
Also in May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Israel aided in delivering a shipment of U.S. weapons to Fatah.
Abu Yousuf, a senior member of Fatah's Force 17, which received the Egyptian and American weapons, told WND the arms shipments will be used to attack Jews and "fight Israeli occupation."
Like many Force 17 members, Abu Yousuf, openly serves in the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group.
"These weapons will be used to fight Israeli occupation forces, especially to defend against Zionist aggression in the Gaza Strip," said Abu Yousuf.
The Fatah militant accused Egypt and the U.S. of attempting to generate Palestinian civil war by arming one faction against another.
Abu Yousuf went on to hint new weapons provided to his group with the help of Israel could be shared with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.
"During our official service and during our job hours we are soldiers (in Force 17). What we do in our free time it is our business. Of course, as members of Fatah, some of us are members in the Brigades and we take part in the defense and protection of our people and in the fight against the Israeli occupation," Abu Yousuf said.
Both Israel and the U.S. State Department consider the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to be a terror organization. But U.S. policy calls Fatah "moderate" and dictates the Brigades is a separate entity, but still affiliated with Fatah.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, together with Islamic Jihad, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis. The Brigades also has carried out scores of deadly shooting and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in recent months.
All Brigades leaders are also members of Fatah. Abbas last June appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of Force 17. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists.
U.S. weapons prompting Palestinian arms race?
Meanwhile, Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told WND the U.S. aid and weapons shipments have prompted a Palestinian arms race.
The Hamas leader said weapons procured as a result of the U.S. shipment will be used against Israel.
"The more the Americans give Abu Mazen (Abbas) weapons, the more we will have in the future weapons to use against the Israelis, because it incites the different organizations to intensify their own supply of weapons," said Abu Abdullah of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.
According to Palestinian security sources, the increased drive by Hamas to obtain new weapons has raised the price of arms in Egypt and Jordan.
"An M-16 that sold for 6,000 Jordanian Dinar now is worth 10,000 Dinar because Hamas is trying to get more weapons," a Palestinian security source told WND.
Like Hamas spokesman Abu Oubaida, Hamas' Abu Abdullah said U.S. weapons to Fatah would eventually fall into the hands of Hamas:
"These American weapons will be one day the property of all the Palestinian people and its resistance, including Hamas," Abu Abdullah said. "The U.S. gives weapons to Fatah during internal Palestinian clashes, but one day when we go back to carrying out operations together, these [weapons] will be shared."
Washington providing $86.4 million to bolster Abbas security forces
Posted: January 8, 200712:33 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
JERUSALEM – A portion of $86.4 million in aid the United States pledged last week to bolster security forces affiliated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party will fall into the hands of the Hamas terror group, Hamas officials told WND.
Also, a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, a terror group allied with Hamas, told WND his organization is planning attacks against Israel using weapons recently transferred to Fatah by the U.S. and Egypt.
The Popular Resistance Committees leader said attacks using the foreign weapons are meant "to prove the Zionist-American conspiracy to bolster forces against us won't work."
"We will obtain the U.S. weapons," the Committees leader said.
(Story continues below)
According to documents revealed Friday, the Bush administration will provide $86.4 million to strengthen security forces loyal to Abbas, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Some members of Force 17 also are openly members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization, Fatah's declared "military wing."
U.S. officials confirmed the financial aid is set to be transferred to Fatah.
The multi-million-dollar grant will be used to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the Road Map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," a U.S. government document said.
According to reports confirmed by Israeli and Palestinian officials, the U.S. and Egypt recently transferred rifles and ammunition to Force 17.
Abu Oubaida, a spokesman for Hamas so-called "military wing," told WND his terror group will obtain any weapons transferred to Fatah militias or purchased by Fatah using the incoming U.S. aid.
"I am sure that like in the past, this $86 million from America will find its way to the Hamas resistance via the honorable persons in the Fatah security organizations, including in Force 17. I can confirm 100 percent that this money and purchased weapons will find its way to Hamas," said Abu Oubaida.
The Hamas spokesman and other Hamas officials said "scores" of Fatah militants have switched over to Hamas in recent months.
Sources close to Hamas said the Fatah militants, including members of Force 17, worked with Hamas after receiving larger paychecks from the terror group.
"When they join Hamas, they bring along their new weapons," said a Hamas source.
A senior Fatah security official in the Gaza Strip, speaking on condition his name be withheld, confirmed to WND Fatah has a "significant problem" of its militia members in Gaza joining Hamas.
In an interview with WND, Muhammad Abdel-Al, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, said his terror group would likely obtain weapons and aid given to Fatah.
"We vow to show the Israelis very soon the weapons lately channeled to the Presidential Guards (Force 17) and to the Fatah security services will be directed against the (Israeli) occupation," said Abdel-Al
"In all the security services, including in Force 17, there are activists affiliated with all the Palestinian groups, including ours, and Hamas," he said. "We vow that there will be no use (of these arms) in a civil war, as we promise that should these arms reach us, we will use them against the occupation and the Zionist enemy."
The Popular Resistance Committees is a coalition of several Palestinian terror groups and is responsible for scores of anti-Israel shootings and rocket attacks. The Committees is also accused of carrying out a bombing in 2003 on a U.S. convoy in Gaza in which three American contractors were killed.
A Committees leader told WND his group is planning terror attacks using American and Egyptian weapons recently transferred to Fatah and obtained by the Committees.
He said when the attacks occur, the Committees will announce the foreign weapons were used.
The reports of U.S. aid to Fatah comes after weeks of factional clashes between Fatah and Hamas, which have engaged in heavy firefights since Abbas last month called for new Palestinian elections in a move widely seen as an attempt to dismantle the Hamas-led PA.
According to reports here confirmed by Israel, Egypt last month transferred 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 20,000 magazines and 2 million rounds of ammunition to Fatah security organizations in the Gaza Strip to bolster the groups in clashes against rival Hamas factions.
WND reported the U.S. sent assault rifles and ammunition last month to Fatah groups in Gaza. The weapons were delivered by an Israeli army convoy, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials involved in the transfer.
Also in May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Israel aided in delivering a shipment of U.S. weapons to Fatah.
Abu Yousuf, a senior member of Fatah's Force 17, which received the Egyptian and American weapons, told WND the arms shipments will be used to attack Jews and "fight Israeli occupation."
Like many Force 17 members, Abu Yousuf, openly serves in the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group.
"These weapons will be used to fight Israeli occupation forces, especially to defend against Zionist aggression in the Gaza Strip," said Abu Yousuf.
The Fatah militant accused Egypt and the U.S. of attempting to generate Palestinian civil war by arming one faction against another.
Abu Yousuf went on to hint new weapons provided to his group with the help of Israel could be shared with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.
"During our official service and during our job hours we are soldiers (in Force 17). What we do in our free time it is our business. Of course, as members of Fatah, some of us are members in the Brigades and we take part in the defense and protection of our people and in the fight against the Israeli occupation," Abu Yousuf said.
Both Israel and the U.S. State Department consider the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to be a terror organization. But U.S. policy calls Fatah "moderate" and dictates the Brigades is a separate entity, but still affiliated with Fatah.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, together with Islamic Jihad, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis. The Brigades also has carried out scores of deadly shooting and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in recent months.
All Brigades leaders are also members of Fatah. Abbas last June appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of Force 17. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists.
U.S. weapons prompting Palestinian arms race?
Meanwhile, Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told WND the U.S. aid and weapons shipments have prompted a Palestinian arms race.
The Hamas leader said weapons procured as a result of the U.S. shipment will be used against Israel.
"The more the Americans give Abu Mazen (Abbas) weapons, the more we will have in the future weapons to use against the Israelis, because it incites the different organizations to intensify their own supply of weapons," said Abu Abdullah of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.
According to Palestinian security sources, the increased drive by Hamas to obtain new weapons has raised the price of arms in Egypt and Jordan.
"An M-16 that sold for 6,000 Jordanian Dinar now is worth 10,000 Dinar because Hamas is trying to get more weapons," a Palestinian security source told WND.
Like Hamas spokesman Abu Oubaida, Hamas' Abu Abdullah said U.S. weapons to Fatah would eventually fall into the hands of Hamas:
"These American weapons will be one day the property of all the Palestinian people and its resistance, including Hamas," Abu Abdullah said. "The U.S. gives weapons to Fatah during internal Palestinian clashes, but one day when we go back to carrying out operations together, these [weapons] will be shared."
President Bush Continues To Push America Toward A Police State
some notes in article as well on "singing statements"
by Chuck Baldwin January 9, 2007
President George W. Bush's brand of conservatism is something completely foreign to traditional norms. He has outspent even the most liberal administrations. He has led the nation into undeclared foreign wars under false pretenses. He has bloated the size and scope of the federal government like no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He has consistently promoted "civil unions" for homosexuals. He has increased federal funding for abortion providers at home and abroad. In addition, over the objections of a Republican-controlled Congress, Bush even supported the Clinton gun ban.
However, it is President Bush's preoccupation with turning America into a total surveillance society that separates his administration from any and all others. Before this administration, no conservative president had endorsed the concept of turning the United States into the fulfillment of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, but that is exactly what G.W. Bush is attempting to do.
Under the rubric of fighting terrorism, President Bush has done more to strip the American people of constitutionally-protected freedoms than any administration since Abraham Lincoln. The latest example of Bush's tyrannical tendencies comes in the form of his most recent "signing statement." And please understand that President Bush has issued more "signing statements" than any president in history. In fact, before President Reagan, there was a total of only 75 "signing statements" by all previous administrations. Then, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued 247 "signing statements" combined. So far, President George W. Bush has issued 147 "signing statements" that have challenged constitutional restrictions (upon him) to more than 750 statutes. (Source: The Boston Globe)
After signing a postal reform bill called H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," President Bush issued a "signing statement" that declared his (Bush's) right to open the private mail of American citizens without a judge's warrant.
According to the New York Daily News, "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it."
The News continues by saying, "Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"'The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,' said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington."
Furthermore, a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim said, "You have to be concerned. It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
President Bush's decision to grant himself the power to open private mail without a warrant is similar to what he has done in the recent past. Remember that Bush recently said he had the authority to perform warrantless eavesdropping on the American people.
A total surveillance society is something that Americans heretofore understood to be completely contrary to the principles of liberty. Such a society was reserved for Marxist or Nazi regimes, and was repugnant to all true Americans. No More. President Bush has taken the concept of a surveillance society into the mainstream of America's public life and culture. Sadder still is the fact that there is only a handful of people that seem worried about it, and none of these are conservative Christian leaders.
Since G.W. Bush became president, the American people have lost their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment protections. Their phone calls, emails, and even private discussions can be (and are) monitored by federal police agencies without court order. Beyond that, virtually all of their major banking transactions are constantly monitored, as well as their travel and shopping activities.
The Republican Party has demonstrated that it has no inclination to oppose Bush's New World Order, that is for sure. For one thing, the GOP always was, and still is, the party of Big Business. And just who do you think is getting all the high-dollar federal contracts to do all this national snooping? You bet. The GOP's Big Business buddies.
The national conservative Christian leaders have likewise demonstrated a total disregard for Bush's push for an Orwellian society. After all, they have been too busy enjoying the perks and benefits of sitting at the king's table. Plus, they don't have to worry about being the target of Bush's secret police stings. They are part of the "inner circle," don't you know?
That brings it down to the Democrats. What will Nancy Pelosi and company do to slow down this emerging police state juggernaut? Probably not much. She has made reference to the need to restore constitutional safeguards to Washington politics. But we have heard that kind of talk before, haven't we? The track record of the Democratic Party is hardly reassuring. After all, this is the same bunch that took delight in trashing the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the end, it always comes down to "we the people." Until America's local pastors, local sheriffs, local and state elected officers, and local and state judges begin standing up to this out-of-control federal monstrosity, the slippery slide into fascism will continue. Aw, shucks! I just remembered that most of those people are also on the federal take. Therefore, a return to traditional conservatism is just about out of the question.
Then again, we could do something revolutionary, such as casting aside both major political parties, and start supporting true constitutionalists for a real change in America. The skeleton for such a movement already exists in the form of the Constitution Party. Here is their web site: http://www.constitutionparty.com
One thing is for sure and for certain: we don't need any more "conservatives" like George W. Bush.
© Chuck Baldwin
by Chuck Baldwin January 9, 2007
President George W. Bush's brand of conservatism is something completely foreign to traditional norms. He has outspent even the most liberal administrations. He has led the nation into undeclared foreign wars under false pretenses. He has bloated the size and scope of the federal government like no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He has consistently promoted "civil unions" for homosexuals. He has increased federal funding for abortion providers at home and abroad. In addition, over the objections of a Republican-controlled Congress, Bush even supported the Clinton gun ban.
However, it is President Bush's preoccupation with turning America into a total surveillance society that separates his administration from any and all others. Before this administration, no conservative president had endorsed the concept of turning the United States into the fulfillment of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, but that is exactly what G.W. Bush is attempting to do.
Under the rubric of fighting terrorism, President Bush has done more to strip the American people of constitutionally-protected freedoms than any administration since Abraham Lincoln. The latest example of Bush's tyrannical tendencies comes in the form of his most recent "signing statement." And please understand that President Bush has issued more "signing statements" than any president in history. In fact, before President Reagan, there was a total of only 75 "signing statements" by all previous administrations. Then, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued 247 "signing statements" combined. So far, President George W. Bush has issued 147 "signing statements" that have challenged constitutional restrictions (upon him) to more than 750 statutes. (Source: The Boston Globe)
After signing a postal reform bill called H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," President Bush issued a "signing statement" that declared his (Bush's) right to open the private mail of American citizens without a judge's warrant.
According to the New York Daily News, "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it."
The News continues by saying, "Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"'The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,' said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington."
Furthermore, a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim said, "You have to be concerned. It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
President Bush's decision to grant himself the power to open private mail without a warrant is similar to what he has done in the recent past. Remember that Bush recently said he had the authority to perform warrantless eavesdropping on the American people.
A total surveillance society is something that Americans heretofore understood to be completely contrary to the principles of liberty. Such a society was reserved for Marxist or Nazi regimes, and was repugnant to all true Americans. No More. President Bush has taken the concept of a surveillance society into the mainstream of America's public life and culture. Sadder still is the fact that there is only a handful of people that seem worried about it, and none of these are conservative Christian leaders.
Since G.W. Bush became president, the American people have lost their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment protections. Their phone calls, emails, and even private discussions can be (and are) monitored by federal police agencies without court order. Beyond that, virtually all of their major banking transactions are constantly monitored, as well as their travel and shopping activities.
The Republican Party has demonstrated that it has no inclination to oppose Bush's New World Order, that is for sure. For one thing, the GOP always was, and still is, the party of Big Business. And just who do you think is getting all the high-dollar federal contracts to do all this national snooping? You bet. The GOP's Big Business buddies.
The national conservative Christian leaders have likewise demonstrated a total disregard for Bush's push for an Orwellian society. After all, they have been too busy enjoying the perks and benefits of sitting at the king's table. Plus, they don't have to worry about being the target of Bush's secret police stings. They are part of the "inner circle," don't you know?
That brings it down to the Democrats. What will Nancy Pelosi and company do to slow down this emerging police state juggernaut? Probably not much. She has made reference to the need to restore constitutional safeguards to Washington politics. But we have heard that kind of talk before, haven't we? The track record of the Democratic Party is hardly reassuring. After all, this is the same bunch that took delight in trashing the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the end, it always comes down to "we the people." Until America's local pastors, local sheriffs, local and state elected officers, and local and state judges begin standing up to this out-of-control federal monstrosity, the slippery slide into fascism will continue. Aw, shucks! I just remembered that most of those people are also on the federal take. Therefore, a return to traditional conservatism is just about out of the question.
Then again, we could do something revolutionary, such as casting aside both major political parties, and start supporting true constitutionalists for a real change in America. The skeleton for such a movement already exists in the form of the Constitution Party. Here is their web site: http://www.constitutionparty.com
One thing is for sure and for certain: we don't need any more "conservatives" like George W. Bush.
© Chuck Baldwin
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Al Qaeda a Kremlin Proxy?
By J.R. Nyquist
Last month (please note: "last month refers probably to July 2005 as this article by Nyquist appeared in August 2005) a journalist friend in Poland sent me a translation of an interview with FSB [KGB] defector Alexander Litvinenko. The following testimony, offered by Litvinenko, was published by FAKT. Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (b. Voreonezh, 1962) served in the counterintelligence agencies of the Soviet KGB, and after 1991, as a counter-terrorism expert in the Central Staff of the MB-FSK-FSB (KGB successor organizations). In 1997 Litvinenko served in one of the most secretive departments of the Russian KGB -- the Department for the Analysis of Criminal Organizations. He was a senior operations officer and deputy head of the Seventh Section. Litvinenko defected from Russia and was granted political asylum by the United Kingdom in May 2001.
In a July 2002 article titled Ayman al-Zawahiri's Russian Adventure, I offered the following analysis: "Given Zawahiri's travels to Russia and China, given the full context of Russia's double game in Chechnya (described in last week’s column), we ought to entertain the possibility that China and Russia secretly supported the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11."
Poland's FAKT contacted Litvinenko after the London bombings last month and the following conversation was reported:
FAKT: Alexander, who, in your opinion, is the originator of this [London] terrorist attack?
A. Litvinenko: You know, I have spoken about it earlier and I shall say now, that I know only one organization that has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB was engaged in terrorism for many years, and mass terrorism. At the special department of the KGB they trained terrorists from practically every country in the world. These courses lasted, as a rule, for a half-year. Specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB organized murders and explosions, including explosions of tankers, the hijacking of passenger airliners, strikes on diplomatic, state and commercial organizations worldwide.FAKT: Could you name ... some of the terrorists prepared at the "special courses" of the KGB-FSB?
A. Litvinenko: The bloodiest terrorists in the world were or are agents of the KGB-FSB. These are well-known, like Carlos Ilyich Ramiros, nicknamed "the Jackal," the late Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Adjalan (he is condemned in Turkey), Wadi Haddad, the head of the service of external operations of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hauyi, the head of the communist party of Lebanon, Mr. Papaionnu from the Cyprus, Sean Garland from Ireland and many others. All of them were trained by the KGB, received money from there, weapons and explosives, counterfeit documents and a communication equipment for carrying out of acts of terrorism worldwide.FAKT: Some may object that each of the listed figures, and the forces supporting them, were engaged in solving their own political problems.
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, all these figures and movements operated under their own slogans; however, none of them especially hid their "intimate" ... relationship with the Kremlin and Lubyanka. There is a simple question: whether the Russian special services would train and finance people and groups that were not supervised by Lubyanka and did not serve the interests of the Kremlin? You understand perfectly, they would not. Each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out as an assignment and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR. And [the terrorism] ... is not casual after the disintegration of the USSR and [reform of the KGB]....FAKT: Every terrorist you have named is from 'the old staff' of the KGB. Could you name someone from recent history?
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, here it is. The number two person in the terrorist organization al Qaeda, who they are crediting with the series of explosions in London, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an old agent of the FSB. Being sentenced to death in Egypt for terrorism and hunted by Interpol, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 1998, was in the territory of Dagestan, where for half a year he received special training at one of the educational bases of the FSB. After this training he was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once ... penetrated the milieu of bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al Qaeda.FAKT: Could you hint at least, where this data comes from?
A. Litvinenko: I can. During my service in one of the most secret departments of the FSB, top officials from the UFSB of Dagestan, who had directly worked with Ayman al-Zawahiri ... were called to Moscow and received high posts.FAKT: What can you say concerning the acts of terrorism in London ? From what region and with what forces was this strike directed?
A. Litvinenko: In reply to this question I can definitely say that the center of global terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the Chechen Republic. The terrorist infection is spread worldwide from Lubyanka Square and the Kremlin cabinet. And until the Russian special services are outlawed, dispersed and condemned, the terrorism will never stop: bombs will blow up and blood will be shed. Terrorism has no expiration date.... I would like to repeat, that all the terrorists, whom I have named, were supported by the heads of the Soviet and Russian special services - Yuri Andropov, Vladimir Putin, Nikolay Patrushev and others. These people are the main terrorists.... And until we condemn them ... global terrorism will continue.
Such was the FAKT interview with former FSB-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko. Related to this, in 1998 I asked a former Russian intelligence official how Moscow might successfully pull off a surprise nuclear attack against the United States without suffering a devastating retaliation. He replied without hesitation, saying: "If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons don't believe it." The attack, he said, would be from Russia.
Even now I don't fully understand how a proxy WMD terrorist attack on the United States would be exploited. Exactly what is Moscow trying to achieve? What is the strategic follow-up? I was told that a mass missile strike on America would follow. I am reminded of San Renxing's recent commentary on a secret Communist Party speech about China's plans to kill 100 to 200 million Americans: "Unable to believe in the existence of such wickedness ... people would rather think the [war] 'speech' cannot be true or it's not to be believed."
I will end this commentary with a quote from the text of Viktor Suvorov's Spetsnaz.
[Widespread terrorist and sabotage operations in advance of World War III] are known officially in the GRU as the "preparatory period," and unofficially as the "overture." The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy's morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy's armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack.
The overture is carried out by agents of the secret services of the Soviet satellite countries and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is "gray terror," that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leave other people's cards. The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations.
Last month (please note: "last month refers probably to July 2005 as this article by Nyquist appeared in August 2005) a journalist friend in Poland sent me a translation of an interview with FSB [KGB] defector Alexander Litvinenko. The following testimony, offered by Litvinenko, was published by FAKT. Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (b. Voreonezh, 1962) served in the counterintelligence agencies of the Soviet KGB, and after 1991, as a counter-terrorism expert in the Central Staff of the MB-FSK-FSB (KGB successor organizations). In 1997 Litvinenko served in one of the most secretive departments of the Russian KGB -- the Department for the Analysis of Criminal Organizations. He was a senior operations officer and deputy head of the Seventh Section. Litvinenko defected from Russia and was granted political asylum by the United Kingdom in May 2001.
In a July 2002 article titled Ayman al-Zawahiri's Russian Adventure, I offered the following analysis: "Given Zawahiri's travels to Russia and China, given the full context of Russia's double game in Chechnya (described in last week’s column), we ought to entertain the possibility that China and Russia secretly supported the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11."
Poland's FAKT contacted Litvinenko after the London bombings last month and the following conversation was reported:
FAKT: Alexander, who, in your opinion, is the originator of this [London] terrorist attack?
A. Litvinenko: You know, I have spoken about it earlier and I shall say now, that I know only one organization that has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB was engaged in terrorism for many years, and mass terrorism. At the special department of the KGB they trained terrorists from practically every country in the world. These courses lasted, as a rule, for a half-year. Specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB organized murders and explosions, including explosions of tankers, the hijacking of passenger airliners, strikes on diplomatic, state and commercial organizations worldwide.FAKT: Could you name ... some of the terrorists prepared at the "special courses" of the KGB-FSB?
A. Litvinenko: The bloodiest terrorists in the world were or are agents of the KGB-FSB. These are well-known, like Carlos Ilyich Ramiros, nicknamed "the Jackal," the late Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Adjalan (he is condemned in Turkey), Wadi Haddad, the head of the service of external operations of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hauyi, the head of the communist party of Lebanon, Mr. Papaionnu from the Cyprus, Sean Garland from Ireland and many others. All of them were trained by the KGB, received money from there, weapons and explosives, counterfeit documents and a communication equipment for carrying out of acts of terrorism worldwide.FAKT: Some may object that each of the listed figures, and the forces supporting them, were engaged in solving their own political problems.
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, all these figures and movements operated under their own slogans; however, none of them especially hid their "intimate" ... relationship with the Kremlin and Lubyanka. There is a simple question: whether the Russian special services would train and finance people and groups that were not supervised by Lubyanka and did not serve the interests of the Kremlin? You understand perfectly, they would not. Each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out as an assignment and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR. And [the terrorism] ... is not casual after the disintegration of the USSR and [reform of the KGB]....FAKT: Every terrorist you have named is from 'the old staff' of the KGB. Could you name someone from recent history?
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, here it is. The number two person in the terrorist organization al Qaeda, who they are crediting with the series of explosions in London, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an old agent of the FSB. Being sentenced to death in Egypt for terrorism and hunted by Interpol, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 1998, was in the territory of Dagestan, where for half a year he received special training at one of the educational bases of the FSB. After this training he was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once ... penetrated the milieu of bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al Qaeda.FAKT: Could you hint at least, where this data comes from?
A. Litvinenko: I can. During my service in one of the most secret departments of the FSB, top officials from the UFSB of Dagestan, who had directly worked with Ayman al-Zawahiri ... were called to Moscow and received high posts.FAKT: What can you say concerning the acts of terrorism in London ? From what region and with what forces was this strike directed?
A. Litvinenko: In reply to this question I can definitely say that the center of global terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the Chechen Republic. The terrorist infection is spread worldwide from Lubyanka Square and the Kremlin cabinet. And until the Russian special services are outlawed, dispersed and condemned, the terrorism will never stop: bombs will blow up and blood will be shed. Terrorism has no expiration date.... I would like to repeat, that all the terrorists, whom I have named, were supported by the heads of the Soviet and Russian special services - Yuri Andropov, Vladimir Putin, Nikolay Patrushev and others. These people are the main terrorists.... And until we condemn them ... global terrorism will continue.
Such was the FAKT interview with former FSB-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko. Related to this, in 1998 I asked a former Russian intelligence official how Moscow might successfully pull off a surprise nuclear attack against the United States without suffering a devastating retaliation. He replied without hesitation, saying: "If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons don't believe it." The attack, he said, would be from Russia.
Even now I don't fully understand how a proxy WMD terrorist attack on the United States would be exploited. Exactly what is Moscow trying to achieve? What is the strategic follow-up? I was told that a mass missile strike on America would follow. I am reminded of San Renxing's recent commentary on a secret Communist Party speech about China's plans to kill 100 to 200 million Americans: "Unable to believe in the existence of such wickedness ... people would rather think the [war] 'speech' cannot be true or it's not to be believed."
I will end this commentary with a quote from the text of Viktor Suvorov's Spetsnaz.
[Widespread terrorist and sabotage operations in advance of World War III] are known officially in the GRU as the "preparatory period," and unofficially as the "overture." The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy's morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy's armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack.
The overture is carried out by agents of the secret services of the Soviet satellite countries and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is "gray terror," that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leave other people's cards. The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Reincarnation of the Reds (by the Greens)
by Ilana Mercer
Primitive man worshipped nature and imbued inanimate things with human qualities. So do environmentalists.
James Lovelock, one of the movement's godheads, and the godfather of the Gaia hypothesis, imbued the earth with mystical powers. The Lovelock-inspired concept of "planetary consciousness" is really a philosophical excrescence of animism, "the belief that natural objects, natural phenomena and the universe itself possess souls."
(Column continues below)
Nature worship is a form of this fetishism. Primitives worshipped idols and amulets but also conferred divine honor on the sun, moon, mountains, rivers, trees and animals; air, fire and water. Environmental animists à la Lovelock believe that to tamper with one aspect of the interlocking system of "organisms, surface rocks, oceans and atmosphere" is to tempt fate.
To quote Lovelock's adoring acolytes at the New York Review of Books, this balance is now being disrupted by "our brief binge of fossil fuel consumption." Reduce ocean levels of algae and "teeming billions will perish," or so they say.
Most of Lovelock's earlier gloomy predictions have not panned out, but this has done nothing to cool the reverence he receives from media. They, like Lovelock and his ilk, aim not to "save" men, but to subjugate them to Mother Earth. Indeed, major media have had a good reason for pushing apocalyptic climate-change theories for over a century.
"A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems," explains economist George Reisman.
Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated.
In his seminal work, "Capitalism," Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that "the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as 'exploitation,' 'monopoly' and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity"; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage."
Republican Sen. James Inhofe recently traced the historical arc of media hysteria: "[F]or more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."
The Business and Media Institute, a valiant defender of the free market, is in agreement, after "conducting an extensive analysis of print media's climate change coverage back to the late 1800s." Its report, ""Fire and Ice," found that "the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again and, perhaps not so finally, warming":
"Many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including the New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895."
Warnings of an approaching ice age lasted well into the 1920s. Then, an imperceptible warming in the earth's surface saw the Times begin to blow hot air about global warming. This phase ended when, in the 1950s, Fortune magazine heralded an Ice Age. For some time, the Times remained suspended in journalistic permafrost but soon warmed, in 1975, to the idea of "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable," to quote its headline. Hot on the heels of this cold cycle, the paper joined the current crop of Chicken Littles to bewail global warming.
That's right, not so long ago they clucked about global cooling; now they claim the sky is falling because of global warming.
More fundamentally, theirs is, ultimately, an "argument" against continued economic progress. Be it warming or cooling, the goal is the same: Climate kooks want to scale back the market economy that is responsible for the magnificent living standards enjoyed in industrialized countries.
To accomplish this unchanging ambition, these mutant Marxists have had to create a theory that can't be falsified – the kind of "theory" Karl Popper referred to as irrefutable. As Popper reminded us, "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is," of course, "non-scientific."
Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate kooks enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns – warm or cold – is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.
Then again, a leap of faith is necessary if one is to sustain a belief that the specimen that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa is no better than a monkey – a creature that has never created anything, lives in trees, throws coconuts and hoots to communicate.
Primitive man worshipped nature and imbued inanimate things with human qualities. So do environmentalists.
James Lovelock, one of the movement's godheads, and the godfather of the Gaia hypothesis, imbued the earth with mystical powers. The Lovelock-inspired concept of "planetary consciousness" is really a philosophical excrescence of animism, "the belief that natural objects, natural phenomena and the universe itself possess souls."
(Column continues below)
Nature worship is a form of this fetishism. Primitives worshipped idols and amulets but also conferred divine honor on the sun, moon, mountains, rivers, trees and animals; air, fire and water. Environmental animists à la Lovelock believe that to tamper with one aspect of the interlocking system of "organisms, surface rocks, oceans and atmosphere" is to tempt fate.
To quote Lovelock's adoring acolytes at the New York Review of Books, this balance is now being disrupted by "our brief binge of fossil fuel consumption." Reduce ocean levels of algae and "teeming billions will perish," or so they say.
Most of Lovelock's earlier gloomy predictions have not panned out, but this has done nothing to cool the reverence he receives from media. They, like Lovelock and his ilk, aim not to "save" men, but to subjugate them to Mother Earth. Indeed, major media have had a good reason for pushing apocalyptic climate-change theories for over a century.
"A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems," explains economist George Reisman.
Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated.
In his seminal work, "Capitalism," Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that "the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as 'exploitation,' 'monopoly' and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity"; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage."
Republican Sen. James Inhofe recently traced the historical arc of media hysteria: "[F]or more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."
The Business and Media Institute, a valiant defender of the free market, is in agreement, after "conducting an extensive analysis of print media's climate change coverage back to the late 1800s." Its report, ""Fire and Ice," found that "the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again and, perhaps not so finally, warming":
"Many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including the New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895."
Warnings of an approaching ice age lasted well into the 1920s. Then, an imperceptible warming in the earth's surface saw the Times begin to blow hot air about global warming. This phase ended when, in the 1950s, Fortune magazine heralded an Ice Age. For some time, the Times remained suspended in journalistic permafrost but soon warmed, in 1975, to the idea of "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable," to quote its headline. Hot on the heels of this cold cycle, the paper joined the current crop of Chicken Littles to bewail global warming.
That's right, not so long ago they clucked about global cooling; now they claim the sky is falling because of global warming.
More fundamentally, theirs is, ultimately, an "argument" against continued economic progress. Be it warming or cooling, the goal is the same: Climate kooks want to scale back the market economy that is responsible for the magnificent living standards enjoyed in industrialized countries.
To accomplish this unchanging ambition, these mutant Marxists have had to create a theory that can't be falsified – the kind of "theory" Karl Popper referred to as irrefutable. As Popper reminded us, "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is," of course, "non-scientific."
Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate kooks enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns – warm or cold – is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.
Then again, a leap of faith is necessary if one is to sustain a belief that the specimen that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa is no better than a monkey – a creature that has never created anything, lives in trees, throws coconuts and hoots to communicate.
Bush-41 officials in Chinese cargo-monitor deal
Firm connected to communist regime setting up high-tech sensors in U.S.
Posted: December 8, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
GlobeSecNine – a private equity firm composed largely of top-ranking government and military officials from President George H. W. Bush's administration – has investment ties with the communist Chinese firm Hutchinson Ports Holdings that is joint-venturing to place cargo reading sensors on the planned North American superhighway.
The Interstate-35 Super-Corridor is to run from the Mexican port of Lázaro Cárdenas on the Pacific, cross the border at Laredo, Texas, and continue on through Dallas, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and north into Canada.
On April 21, 2005, Savi Technology, Inc., then a private company, created Savi Networks LLC, a new joint venture company, with Hutchinson Ports Holdings to install active RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) equipment and software in participating ports around the world and to provide users with the information, identity location and status of their ocean cargo containers as they pass through such ports.
(Story continues below)
Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, joined the Savi Technology board April 5, 2005, just prior to the deal.
Savi Networks was capitalized at $50 million from the joint venture partners. Savi Technology holds a 51 percent interest in Savi Networks while HPH holds the remaining 49 percent.
On the same day, April 21, 2005, HPH made a concurrent $50 million investment in Infolink Systems, Inc., the parent company of Savi Technology, which provided HPH with 10 percent of Infolink on a fully diluted basis.
On May 4, 2005, GlobeSecNine, made a $2 million strategic investment in Infolink Systems, Inc., the parent company of Savi Technology.
On June 8 of this year, Lockheed Martin acquired Infolink Systems, Inc., thereby acquiring Savi Technology, Inc.
A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin confirmed to WND that the HPH interest in the joint venture subsidiary, Savi Networks, survived the acquisition of Infolink by Lockheed.
As WND previously reported, Savi Networks is currently negotiating a contract with North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc., NASCO, the Dallas-based trade organization that advocates developing continental trade corridors along Interstates 35, 29 and 94. The contract will allow Savi Networks to establish sensors along the super-corridor that would read RFID tags placed on containers transported by truck and train, including containers from China and the Far East which enter the North American continent at Mexican ports, including Lazaro Cárdenas on the Pacific.
GlobeSecNine's chairman of the board is Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He also was chairman of President George W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2005. From 1982 to 1989, Scowcroft also served as vice chairman of Kissinger Associates.
Other GlobeSecNine principals include David D. Miller Jr., former ambassador and special assistant to the president and senior director on the National Security Council for counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics; Gen.Al Gray, former commandant of the Marine Corps and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; John Lawn, former administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
A Feb. 16, 2005, announcement on the website of the Scowcroft Group advised that the Scowcroft Group and GlobeSecNine had formed a strategic alliance to pursue private equity investment opportunities in the homeland defense and security sectors. The investments were expected to be funded by GlobeSecNine through its alliance with the $1.5 billion Bear Stearns Merchant Banking fund.
Attorney Anthony D. Padgett is listed as GlobeSecNine's CEO. Also listed as managing directors are Gregory S. Newbold, a retired lieutenant general in the U.S. Marine Corps, and William R. Sullivan, who previously held senior strategy and management positions at American Express Company and Shearson Lehman Brothers. Newbold, who retired from the Marine Corps in 2002, later emerged as a vocal critic of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and the decision to invade Iraq.
The website of GlobeSecNine has been closed to public access. The company is listed as operating from offices in Arlington, Va.
Posted: December 8, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
GlobeSecNine – a private equity firm composed largely of top-ranking government and military officials from President George H. W. Bush's administration – has investment ties with the communist Chinese firm Hutchinson Ports Holdings that is joint-venturing to place cargo reading sensors on the planned North American superhighway.
The Interstate-35 Super-Corridor is to run from the Mexican port of Lázaro Cárdenas on the Pacific, cross the border at Laredo, Texas, and continue on through Dallas, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and north into Canada.
On April 21, 2005, Savi Technology, Inc., then a private company, created Savi Networks LLC, a new joint venture company, with Hutchinson Ports Holdings to install active RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) equipment and software in participating ports around the world and to provide users with the information, identity location and status of their ocean cargo containers as they pass through such ports.
(Story continues below)
Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, joined the Savi Technology board April 5, 2005, just prior to the deal.
Savi Networks was capitalized at $50 million from the joint venture partners. Savi Technology holds a 51 percent interest in Savi Networks while HPH holds the remaining 49 percent.
On the same day, April 21, 2005, HPH made a concurrent $50 million investment in Infolink Systems, Inc., the parent company of Savi Technology, which provided HPH with 10 percent of Infolink on a fully diluted basis.
On May 4, 2005, GlobeSecNine, made a $2 million strategic investment in Infolink Systems, Inc., the parent company of Savi Technology.
On June 8 of this year, Lockheed Martin acquired Infolink Systems, Inc., thereby acquiring Savi Technology, Inc.
A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin confirmed to WND that the HPH interest in the joint venture subsidiary, Savi Networks, survived the acquisition of Infolink by Lockheed.
As WND previously reported, Savi Networks is currently negotiating a contract with North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc., NASCO, the Dallas-based trade organization that advocates developing continental trade corridors along Interstates 35, 29 and 94. The contract will allow Savi Networks to establish sensors along the super-corridor that would read RFID tags placed on containers transported by truck and train, including containers from China and the Far East which enter the North American continent at Mexican ports, including Lazaro Cárdenas on the Pacific.
GlobeSecNine's chairman of the board is Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He also was chairman of President George W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2005. From 1982 to 1989, Scowcroft also served as vice chairman of Kissinger Associates.
Other GlobeSecNine principals include David D. Miller Jr., former ambassador and special assistant to the president and senior director on the National Security Council for counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics; Gen.Al Gray, former commandant of the Marine Corps and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; John Lawn, former administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
A Feb. 16, 2005, announcement on the website of the Scowcroft Group advised that the Scowcroft Group and GlobeSecNine had formed a strategic alliance to pursue private equity investment opportunities in the homeland defense and security sectors. The investments were expected to be funded by GlobeSecNine through its alliance with the $1.5 billion Bear Stearns Merchant Banking fund.
Attorney Anthony D. Padgett is listed as GlobeSecNine's CEO. Also listed as managing directors are Gregory S. Newbold, a retired lieutenant general in the U.S. Marine Corps, and William R. Sullivan, who previously held senior strategy and management positions at American Express Company and Shearson Lehman Brothers. Newbold, who retired from the Marine Corps in 2002, later emerged as a vocal critic of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and the decision to invade Iraq.
The website of GlobeSecNine has been closed to public access. The company is listed as operating from offices in Arlington, Va.
Analysts: Dollar collapse would result in 'amero'
see link for full article...by Jerome Corsi
Two analysts who have reconstructed money supply data after the Fed stopped publishing it argue a coming dollar collapse will set the stage for creating the amero as a North American currency to replace the dollar.
The reconstructed M3 data – the broadest measure of money – published on econometrician Gary Kuever's website, NowAndFutures.com, shows M3 increased at a rate of 11 percent in May, compared to 9 percent when the Federal Reserve quit publishing M3 data earlier this year.
Asked why the Fed decided to stop publishing M3 data, Kuever told WND, "The Fed probably wants to hide how much liquidity is being pumped into the market, and I expect the trend to keep pumping liquidity into the market will continue, especially since the economy is slowing down."
Two analysts who have reconstructed money supply data after the Fed stopped publishing it argue a coming dollar collapse will set the stage for creating the amero as a North American currency to replace the dollar.
The reconstructed M3 data – the broadest measure of money – published on econometrician Gary Kuever's website, NowAndFutures.com, shows M3 increased at a rate of 11 percent in May, compared to 9 percent when the Federal Reserve quit publishing M3 data earlier this year.
Asked why the Fed decided to stop publishing M3 data, Kuever told WND, "The Fed probably wants to hide how much liquidity is being pumped into the market, and I expect the trend to keep pumping liquidity into the market will continue, especially since the economy is slowing down."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)