H U M O R Clever Definitions http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7267.shtml contributing editor to   - Bill

The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding subtracting, or changing of one letter, and supply a new definition.

Here are this year's {2005} winners:

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.
 

2. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.

3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stop bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

10. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.

11. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

12. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.

13. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

14. Glibido: All talk and no action.

15. Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter, when they come at you rapidly.

16. Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

17. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

18. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
 
 

I N S I G H T Bush Empire's rift with Venezuelan Pres. Chavez http://judicial-inc.biz/Robertson_Chavez.htm contributing editor to   - Bill

[Here is more background on the Bush Empire's rift with Venezuelan Pres. Chavez.   Brief but interesting.   Be sure your speakers are on when visiting the above URL.  --  Bill]
 

	......
Pat Robertson Demands Assassination Of South American People's Hero "Just kill Chavez"		Hugo Chavez Venezuela's 2005 version of Zorro

 

Maria Corina Machado, An Opponent Of Chavez A Marxist, who led a coup, and now faces charges of treason.

What's This All About?

    In 1992, Chavez, a Lieutenant-Colonel, led a rebellion against Venezuela's corrupt President. In 1998 he was elected President. Venezuelans call him the 'People's President'.

    He wants to bring the masses up from poverty, and use Venezuela's oil wealth for the benefit of the people. For a long time, South America has been a sanctuary for drug king pins and Chavez is no friend of the Zionist narco-terrorism syndicates. Almost all the other major South American countries have Zionist Jewish Presidents, and they want Chavez out.
 
 

Carlos Perez

Venezuela's Recent History 1989 - 1993 ... Carlos Pérez was an inept President, who sold out Venezuelans in a $ 4.5 billion dollar Washington Consensus. In 1992, Chavez led a revolt to save Venezuela as it sunk deeper into the fiscal abyss. The coup failed, and Chávez and his freedom fighters were jailed, but Pérez was impeached and convicted for corruption. 1994 .....Chávez was eventually released from jail in 1994 by Perez's elected successor, Rafael Caldera. 1998 ... Chavez was elected President

Caldera

 

In 1998, Chavez Is Elected President Chavez had the Zionist drug cartels and their cronies on the run. In 2002, Machado, and her Marxist cadre staged a coup on behalf of the Zionists, but it failed. After the coup failed, Bush and Rice warn Chavez  that America will watch him. Chavez brushed the duo aside with rather hilarious comments.

 

    Ms. Machado Is a Marxist crypto-Zionist.

    She is a Jewish Marxist, and a favorite of the Zionists. Venezuela federal police say she was involved in the 2002 coup, using financing from the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. She said the funds were used to encourage voter participation in a subsequent effort to oust Chavez.

    The coup failed and Machado was arrested for treason

Cash Funneled For A Coup The National Endowment for Democracy is a front operation that the Zionists use to funnel money to elect their special friends all over the world. Members of the NED Board and Staff, include Morton Abramowitz, Larry A. Liebenow, General Wesley K. Clark, Carl Gershman, and others

Enraged Zionists Take Revenge
 

Danilo Anderson Assassinated Attorney general Danilo Anderson was about to put 400 people (Zionist revolutionaries) on trial for their involvement in the April, 2002 coup against Chavez, as well as their organizing of embassy bombings, incitement to civil unrest, and general acts of sabotage. The Mossad coordinated Anderson's assassination, with help from Malnik in Miami.

 

Ceresole, An Advisor, Was Assassinated. He wrote 30 books on geo-political strategy and military sociology, and became an advisor to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and also had ties to Chilean president Salvador Allende and Peruvian nationalist President Juan Velazco Alvarado. Ceresole was a student of European historian Robert Faurisson, and was South America's foremost expert on Zionism. Cresole died on May 11, 2003, in Argentina, at age 59.

 

Gary Webb Was Assassinated Webb was writing a book about Jewish political control of the South American drug trade when he was killed.

 

Pat Robertson Robertson hates Chavez. He describes Ms. Machado in ways that make appear as to be Goldilocks. Maria-Corina Machado, opposition leader and mother of three, faces prison time for simply taking grant money from the National Endowment for Democracy, a program of the United States Congress.

So What's Really Happening?

There is no way that the Zionists will let a Populist leader in the Third World keep control of what amounts to 15% of the world's oil. Chavez is looked upon as being a 21st Century Zorro, and he has become a real powerhouse in South America, and the Jewish narcotics kingpins feel given the chance, Chavez would put a stop to their drug trade.

Chavez  was tutored under Ceresole, and has been modernizing Venezuela's armed forces, buying such modern arms as MiG-29 fighter jets. The Drug Lords only have helicopters, and transports, that were supplied by Clinton, and are no match for MIG 29's.
 
 

I N S I G H T Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7267.shtml contributing editor to   - Rodger

[But Bush is a "Born Again Christian" who seeks God's face and Jesus is the person who has influenced him the most and he reads the Bible daily so they must be talking about someone else.

Be sure and go to the web page so you can see the picture.  This is how George W. Bush really feels about Christian and America.  --  Rodger]

By Doug Thompson, Aug 25, 2005, 06:19
 

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him. “I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!” Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas. Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherfucking traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullshit protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.” White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.

Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.

“Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know shit.”

Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go fuck yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.

Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.

To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says.

Dr. Frank, in his book, speculates that Bush, an alcoholic who brags that he gave up booze without help from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, may be drinking again.

“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says.  “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”

Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’”

Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial:

“The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
 
 

I am from the gubment, & am here to help you - NOT Militarized Police Storm Utah Rave, Beat Partygoers http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/230805utahrave.htm contributing editor to   - Rodger

[The video is worth seeing and can be seen at the above URL or  at 

About 90 law enforcement officers from multiple agencies broke up what they said was a rave party on public and private property in the Diamond Fork area of Spanish Fork canyon, an hour outside of Salt Lake City, Utah, at about 11:30 p.m. Saturday.

According to the county, the sheriff's office had been investigating similar parties since the beginning of the season. In a press release from the Sheriff's office in Utah County, the department claims that previous allegations of sexual abuse while attending other raves, as well as various firearm and theft violations, were reason for the investigation. The release continues to state that the proper permit was not obtained before the party started.

Armed with assault rifles and tear gas, the police used dogs to sweep the crowd for narcotics. At least one helicopter was used in the operation. The scale of the police response was apparently due to the ineffectiveness of a smaller force used in the previous "Sequence Five" rave. Prior to dispersing the partiers, several police informants had reportedly infiltrated the rave and observed widespread illegal activities.

The promoter says the party took place on private property, named Child's Ranch, with express permission from the owner. The property owner has apparently had at least one previous run-in with police over a similar event. Utah County requires a permit, bond and county commission approval for all gatherings with more than 250 people present. According to a DJ at the event, "they presold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total". He added that by the time police arrived "the crowd was about 1500 people thick".

The police have publicly stated that these permits were not obtained, but the promoters claim otherwise. Officials also claim that the party had spilled over onto public land.

Police reported in local press that more than 60 arrests were made for weapons offenses, driving under the influence, underage drinking, drug possession and distribution, resisting arrest, assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct. Officers claim to have found cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, mushrooms, alcohol and large amounts of drug paraphernalia. Some of the drugs may include those confiscated from partiers by security guards.

Amateur video from the scene shows a number of SWAT police (estimates are at 90) screaming orders at the DJs to "Shut it down now!" and yelling at others to "get out now, or I'll kick your ass in jail". Armed police are also seen tackling a number of rave-goers, and it is unclear from the video footage whether these attendees attempted to attack the police. Due to the low resolution, automatic lighting adjustment, and low audio quality, the video appears to have been taken with a cellular phone.

A first hand account from a DJ booked to play at the party stated that while police were arresting a man accused of narcotic possession, the suspect was beaten to the ground and continually "kicked in the ribs" by 4 armed "soldiers" dressed in camouflage. According to the account, nobody resisted the policemen but tear gas was still used as partiers were already dispersing quietly. The DJ also states that police were attempting to confiscate video equipment, but an amateur video has still surfaced on the internet (see sources below).

Several partygoers felt they should have the right to attend a rave where drugs are being used, so long as they don't personally use them:

"While it may be true that some individuals choose to take drugs at said events like this, myself as well as many others choose to go for the music. Just like anything, you have bad apples, but you shouldn't cut down the tree." "Raves are not the only musical gatherings where drugs are used and distributed."

Other partygoers felt that the use of force in the shutdown was excessive - numerous eyewitness accounts by concertgoers describe people being beaten, tasered, or attacked with dogs. One account from an attendee, identified as "Colby", states:

"I saw at least two people being beaten on the ground while barking, snarling dogs are held just a few feet from them. Weapons were being pointed at unarmed, peaceful civilians. A friend of mine was forced at gunpoint to put his hands on his head and turn around, because he asked if he could get his things from the tent."

Utah County sheriff's Sergeant Darren Gilbert said a 17-year-old girl was found overdosed on ecstasy, and was treated and released to her parents. Multiple lawsuits are being threatened against the city. According to an advertisement for the event, an attorney was present at the party. The local sheriff is scheduled to appear on Utah TV following a number of complaints being sent to TV stations and the police.

---------------------------------------------

UTAH RAVERS TREATED LIKE TERRORISTS!

Daily Kos | August 23 2005

UTAH RAVERS TREATED LIKE TERRORISTS! EVOL INTENT'S ACCOUNT OF THE INCIDENT!

Originally Posted by knick evl ntnt

Last night, I was booked to play an event about an hour outside of Salt Lake City, Utah. The hype behind this show was huge, they presold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total. The promoters did an amazing job with the show.. they even made slipmats with the flyers on them to promote in local shops.

So, we got to the show around 11:15 or so and it was really cool. It was all outdoors, in a valley surrounded by huge mountains. They had an amazing light show flashing on to a mountain behind the site, the sound was booming, the crowd was about 1500 people thick and everything just seemed too good to be true really. Well...

At about 11:30 or so, I was standing behind the stage talking with someone when I noticed a helicopter pulling over one of the mountain tops. I jokingly said "Oh look, here comes big brother" to the person I was with. I wasn't far off.

The helicopter dipped lower and lower and started shining its lights on the crowd. I was kind of in awe and just sat and watched this thing circle us for a minute. As I looked back towards the crowd I saw a guy dressed in camoflauge walking by, toting an assault rifle. At this point, everyone was fully aware of what was going on . A few "troops" rushed the stage and cut the sound off and started yelling that everyone "get the fuck out of here or go to jail". This is where it got really sticky.

No one resisted. That's for sure. They had police dogs raiding the crowd of people and I saw a dog signal out a guy who obviously had some drugs on him. The soldiers attacked the guy (4 of them on 1), and kicked him a few times in the ribs and had their knees in his back and sides. As they were cuffing him, there was about 1000 kids trying to leave in the backdrop, peacefully. Next thing I know, A can of fucking TEAR GAS is launched into the crowd. People are running and screaming at this point. Girls are crying, guys are cussing... bad scene.

Now, this is all I saw with my own eyes, but I heard plenty of other accounts of the night. Now this isnt gossip I heard from some candy raver, these are instances cited straight out of the promoters mouth..

One of the promoters friends (a very small female) was attacked by one of the police dogs. As she struggled to get away from it, the police tackled her. 3 grown men proceeded to KICK HER IN THE STOMACH.

The police confiscated 3 video tapes in total. People were trying to document what was happening out there. The police saw one guy filming and ran after him, tackled him and his camera fell, and luckily.. his friend grabbed it and ran and got away. priceless footage. That's not all though. Out of 1,500 people, there's sure to be more footage.

The police were rounding up the staff of the party and the main promoter went up to them with the permit for the show and said "here, I have the permit." The police then said, "no you don't" and ripped the permit out of his hand. Then, they put an assault rifle to his forehead and said "get the fuck out of here right now."

Now.. let's get the facts straight here.

This event was 100% legal. They had every permit the city told them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy for the event. They had liscenced security guards at the gates confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes, they searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should mention that they arrested all the security guards for possession.

Oh another interesting fact.. the police did not have a warrant. The owner of the land already has a lawsuit against the city for something similar. A few months ago, she rented her land for a party and the police raided that as well. And catch this, the police forced her to LEAVE HER OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. That's right. They didnt arrest her, but made her leave her own property!!!

Don't get it twisted, this is all going down in probably THE most conservative state in the USA. And this is scary.. a gross violation of our civil liberties. The police wanted this party shut down, so they made it happen. Even though everything about this event was legal. The promoters spent over $ 20,000 on this show and did everything they had to to make it legit, only to have it taken away from them by a group of radical neo-con's with an agenda.

This was one of the scariest things I have ever witnessed in person. I can't even begin to describe how surreal it was. Helicopters, assault rifles, tear gas, camoflauge-wearing soldiers.... why? Was that really necessary?

This needs to be big news across the USofA. At least in our music scene (edm as a whole)... this could happen to any of us at any time. When we're losing the right to gather peacefully, we're also letting the police set a standard of what we can get away with. And I think that's BULLSHIT!

The system fucked up last night... They broke up a party that was 100% legal and they physically hurt a lot of people there at the same time. The promoters already have 6 lawsuits ready to file with their lawyers and the ACLU is already involved.

I'm sure some pictures (and hopefully some video) will surface soon. I'll make sure to post them up here on 404, so you can see the Police State of America at work.

p.s. - there are more stories of police brutality that i'll post up later. gotta hit the airport soon. can't wait to get the fuck out of this shit hole state.

www.buzzlife.com/forums/showthread.php

SHERIFF'S STATEMENT: http://www.utahcountyonline.org/News/DeptNewsDetails.asp?ID=17759&WN_System=SHERIFF

VIDEO: http://homepage.mac.com/apexgrin/FileSharing2.html

------------------------------------------

Witnesses say undue force used at rave

Utah Daily Herald | August 23 2005

Firsthand accounts conflict so starkly that one might wonder whether law enforcement busted two separate events last weekend in Spanish Fork Canyon. Yet the Diamond Fork-area location is among few details confirmed by both the roughly 300 partygoers and about 90 law enforcement personnel who dispelled them at 11:30 p.m. Saturday.

Uprock Records of Salt Lake City promoted the event as an "album-release party" on fliers and Internet sites like www.utrave.org. In addition to live performances by DJ Craze of Miami and Spor from the United Kingdom, the party featured typical highlights like a laser light show, barbecue, oxygen bar and glow sticks.

Undercover deputies and SWAT members depict a rave with rampant illegal activity. Beyond the anticipated drugs -- ecstasy, cocaine, marijuana, mushrooms -- they discovered counterfeit money, guns and an overdosed 17-year-old girl.

But where the stories drastically diverge is the raid.

The Utah County Sheriff's Office reported 18 citations for disorderly conduct, failure to disperse or related charges; 21 alcohol- or drug-related offenses; two for assaulting a peace officer; and two related to firearms. Sheriff Jim Tracy said most of the crowd left peacefully, and deputies exercised a "takedown method" only to arrest those who actively resisted.

Witnesses, however, allege "soldiers" and SWAT members held "AK-47s" to partygoers' heads, punched girls in the face and unleashed an arsenal of everything from attack dogs to tear gas.

"At about 11:30 a helicopter began circling the party," said one partygoer in an e-mail to the Daily Herald. "Out of nowhere huge semis filled with National Guard, SWAT and the police rolled up. Soldiers came out of the bushes and rushed down to the party carrying M-16s, AK-47s, nightsticks and Tasers. They proceeded to attack random people and push their might around on people who had done nothing."

Partygoers and rave fans worldwide are circulating video footage through the Internet to support such claims -- while Tracy used the same clips to defend law enforcement.

"No excessive force was used," he said emphatically.

The SWAT personnel -- including teams from Utah County, Provo, the state Department of Corrections and the Department of Public Safety -- are always prepared with a wide arsenal of riot-fighting gear, including tear gas and canines, but Tracy said they did not use any such weapons Saturday night. The tactical gear is camouflaged similar to military fatigues, but neither the National Guard nor any other military was present.

Josh Witbeck, one of the security staff hired by organizers for the event, has interacted with police at several similar events during three years as a bouncer in Salt Lake-area nightclubs, but police hostility, like he said he observed Saturday night, is rare.

"I was trying to keep the crowds as calm as possible. I knew better than to interfere with the cops, but we all got treated pretty poorly," he said. "I'm not going to place all the blame on the police, but they treated every person here like a criminal."

Tracy said a primary issue was promoters did not obtain the mass gathering permit required by Utah County for events with more than 250 people. To do so would have required at least 30 days notice and approval from the sheriff's office. County officials acknowledged that organizers did receive a health permit regulating such aspects as portable toilets and on-site emergency medical personnel.

Brandon Fullmer, manager of the Uprock Records company that promoted the event, argues that he also obtained the mass gathering permit. He said authorities were denying him a copy of it for proof, but a county official agreed to write a letter verifying it.

"We were not there to start any problems," Fullmer said. "What the cops did was wrong."

Regardless, Utah County authorities defended the raid.

"That's all smoke and mirrors," said County Commissioner Steve White. "They were selling drugs. They were committing illegal acts, and as soon as that happened it doesn't matter what kind of permit they had."

So while Fullmer is consulting his attorney about a possible lawsuit, local law enforcement vow to crack down on the increasingly popular raves.

"There's a legal way to do this, and there's the illegal," Tracy said. "If young folks want to get together and listen to music and dance, we don't care if they go about it the legal way."

Tracy said they are monitoring the Internet, searching for fliers and dispatching helicopters on reconnaissance missions over Utah Valley to locate such gatherings before they expand to thousands of people -- beyond what law enforcement can control.

"If they're going to run one on a Wednesday night, we'll find it," he said. "We will ensure we find them and have them curtailed before they ever get to that point."
 
 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain** The Real Motive Behind The “Department Of Global Anti-Semitism” http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/departofantisemitsm.html contributing editor to   - Rodger

By Rev. Ted Pike

    On October 16, 2004 President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. It establishes a special department within the U.S. State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism, reporting annually to Congress.

    This is more “Hate Crimes” legislation, orchestrated by the international Jewish religious, educational, and fraternal organization, B’nai B’rith, and its Anti-Defamation League. The new “Department of Global Anti-Semitism” is designed to make critics of Israel not only into “anti-Semites” but ultimately into “domestic terrorists.”

    But first, what is anti-Semitism? Simple: It is the racist belief that Jews, because of heredity, are evil, greedy, corrupting, subversive, degenerate, etc. Hitler believed this. So do the KKK and certain “Christian identity” and white supremacist groups.

    Such dehumanization of Jews is evil, un-Christian, un-American.

    On the other hand, if the actions of individual Jews, Jewish institutions, Jewish religious or secular leaders, or the nation Israel have been evil, then vehement criticism is not anti-Semitic. It is courageous and laudable. Certainly, the Biblical prophets, including Christ, engaged in vitriolic criticism of the sinful nation Israel and its false leaders. No one considers them anti-Semitic.

    However, in its “Report on Global Anti-Semitism” and “Global Anti-Semitism Report,” the U.S. State Department ignores the above perspectives. Here is a list of beliefs or activities the U.S. government now considers anti-Semitic:

       1. Any assertion “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world” is anti-Semitic.

       2. “Strong anti-Israel sentiment” is anti-Semitic.

       3. “Virulent criticism” of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic. According to the State Department, anti-Semitism occurs when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behavior of a past or present Zionist leader. Thus, a cartoon that includes a swastika to criticize Ariel Sharon’s brutal 2002 invasion of the West Bank, raining “hell-fire” missiles on hapless Palestinian men, women and children, is anti-Semitic. Similarly, when the word “Zionazi” is used to describe Sharon’s saturation bombing in Lebanon in 1982 (killing 17,500 innocent refugees), it is also “anti-Semitic.”

       4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.

       5. Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.

       6. Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the “New World Order”) is anti-Semitic.

       7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

       8. Diminishing the “six million” figure of Holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.

       9. Calling Israel a “racist” state is anti-Semitic.

      10. Asserting that there exists a “Zionist Conspiracy” is anti-Semitic.

      11. Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.

      12. Making “derogatory statements about Jewish persons” is anti-Semitic.

      13. Denying spiritually disobedient Jews the biblical right to re-occupy Palestine is anti-Semitic.

      14. Alleging that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attack is anti-Semitic.

    In the Global Anti-Semitism Report, State Department spokespersons Ambassador Edward O’Donnell and the head of the office of global anti-Semitism, Ambassador Michael B. Kozak, defend the State Department’s definitions. O’Donnell’s statement that he wants to “end all anti-Semitism and other hate crimes” reveals that he considers anti-Semitism a hate crime. Presumably, he would like such a “crime” to be punished.

    These State Department reports repeatedly equate “strong, anti-Israel sentiment” and criticism of matters Jewish with “hate.” They give no recognition to the possibility that such criticism might be sincerely motivated not by hate but by moral indignation or even love for the Jewish people.

    The Report on Global Anti-Semitism repeatedly calls for passage, both nationally and internationally, of “hate crime” legislation. These laws, the brainchild of B’nai B’rith/ADL, also have as their ultimate goal making it a “hate crime” to criticize Jews, matters Jewish, or the state of Israel.

    The Report on Global Anti-Semitism reeks with B’nai B’rith/ADL logic, phraseology, and evidence of their incredible worldwide organizational and statistic-gathering capacities. It contains thirty-three pages of minute documentation of “anti-Semitic incidents” in fifty-eight countries of the world, documentation which only B’nai B’rith/ADL, with its offices in more than fifty countries, could compile or even be that vitally interested in. Without a doubt, as with hate laws, this Global Anti-Semitism Review Act is their creation.

    Thus, the Department of Anti-Semitism, applauded and advised by B’nai B’rith/ADL, is working to create a worldwide “criticism-free zone” for Jews in the “New World Order” that is coming. This report ignores whether criticisms of matters Jewish are true. What must be defended are the sensitivities of the Jewish people! Consequently, relating such unflattering realities as the anti-Christian, anti-Gentile contents of the Talmud and Kabbalah, Jewish origins of bolshevism, Jewish dominance of Hollywood and the media, Jewish control of Congress through AIPAC, Zionist atrocities and abrasiveness in the Middle East is anti-Semitic. It is “hate.” It does not matter that such facts can be easily and extensively documented, often from impeccable Jewish sources such as the Encyclopedia Judaica.

    All such anti-Semitism, this report says, is a “scourge,” an “intolerable burden,” which “for an increasingly interdependent world…must be ended.”

    On the other hand, according to the U.S. State Department, there does exist some possibility that “objective criticism” of Israel and its leaders can be tolerated - that is, just as long as such criticism does not “cross the line” and become “strong anti-Israel sentiment” and “virulent.” Such criticism should not “demonize” Jews, Jewish religious or political leaders, or the state of Israel.

    However, what may be considered “virulence” or “demonization” by Zionists may be seen as nothing more than salty truth-telling by critics of Israel. Hypocritically, the State Department itself is not above “demonizing” strong critics of Israel in the most “virulent” terms as a “plague” and “scourge” on mankind!

    The State Department’s twisted definition of anti-Semitism provides exponential opportunities to persecute Bible-believing Christians, anti-war activists, Moslems, as well as publishers and broadcasters in the years ahead. In fact, by turning “strong” criticism of the American/Zionist coalition into “anti-Semitism and other hate crimes,” the State Department opens the door to eventual characterization of those who criticize Israel as not only anti-Semites but also as “domestic terrorists.”

    Here’s how it can be done:

    Today, those who raise funds in America to support America’s and Israel’s terrorist enemies are arrested as “domestic terrorists.” But what if articulate Americans provided something else, potentially even more valuable to Israel’s enemies: “strong criticism” of Israel? Such could weaken Israel morally in the sight of the world, giving justification to the claims of her terrorist enemies. Should they also be punished?

    As the Second World War was beginning in 1939, Charles Lindberg was publicly critical of international Jews for inveigling America into a war to destroy Hitler. Lindberg believed that Hitler should be allowed to do what he wanted to do most, move east and destroy “Jewish Communism” in Russia.

    In 1944, 30 Americans, who agreed with Lindberg, were arrested for the crime of “sedition,” weakening America’s resolve in the fight against fascism. Later investigation under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the ADL, attempting to equate criticism of international Jews with Nazism, had entirely created the FBI case.

    Records revealed that the ADL was “only warming up” by pursuing sedition convictions against 30 innocent Americans. Their ultimate ambition was to imprison prominent critics of evil Jewish leadership, especially Charles Lindberg. Fortunately, ADL’s attempt to transform 30 critics of international Jews into “Nazis” failed when the judge died and the case was dissolved.

    Today, America and Israel are allies in the “war on terror.” Tomorrow, especially if the war on terror intensifies and America and Israel cooperate even more closely, criticism of America’s ally in the war on terrorism may be construed as “aiding and abetting the enemy.” Such “strong criticism” or anti-Semitism may be seen as not only weakening Israel, but America itself.

    Turning millions of Americans into anti-Semites for criticizing Israel is thus a transition toward ADL’s ultimate goal: making such persons “enemies of the war on terror,” i.e., “domestic terrorists.”

    They then can be prosecuted under Homeland Security laws.

    In Canada, we are seeing exactly this happen. Ernst Zundel is a Holocaust revisionist who doubts that a full six million Jews were deliberately murdered by the Nazis, largely by gassing. He asserts that untold numbers of Jews in German internment camps, especially in the last years of the war, died not in gas chambers, but as a result of massive, well-documented typhus epidemics, which also killed countless Poles, Gypsies, Russians, etc. Yet in Canada, thanks to ADL/B’nai B’rith, it is a “hate crime” to lesson to any degree the six million figure of Holocaust dead, or that most of them died in gas chambers. Such diminishment is anti-Semitism, a “hate crime” punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment. Several years ago Zundel was deported from his home in Tennessee back to Canada to spend more than two years in solitary confinement in a Canadian prison. He was then deported back to his native Germany where he remains in prison.

    Under what charge have Canadian authorities been holding him?

    You guessed it. He is a “terrorist threat!”

    So it will be for millions of Americans tomorrow if ADL/B’nai B’rith have their way and the Department of Anti-Semitism’s twisted definitions of anti-Semitism are allowed to stand.

    The Department of Global Anti-Semitism is informing the world who the “domestic terrorists” of tomorrow will be.

    They are you and I.

    WHAT CAN WE DO?

    We can do plenty!

    Call our members of Congress toll-free at 1-877-762-8762

    Call the U.S. State Department comment line at 1-202-647-4000

    Demand that all funding and authority for the development of the Department of Anti-Semitism be rescinded.

    Demand that Congressional hearings be held to re-formulate a workable, balanced definition of “anti-Semitism” - one that protects Bible-believing Christians, critics of Israel, and Moslems from persecution as “anti-Semites.”

    Also, call into talk shows, especially large, syndicated ones.

    Since the threat of hate laws is “taboo” on most large shows, do not tell the talk show operator that you want to comment on that subject. If the topic of the day is even remotely related to the issue of free speech, terrorism, the Mid-East, etc., begin with those topics but quickly move the discussion to the threat of hate laws. Describe how free speech is lost in Canada; how eleven Christians were arrested under Pennsylvania’s hate law; how the “Department of Anti-semitism” would make many Americans into anti-semites.

    Talk show hosts: For an interview with Rev. Ted Pike on the “Department of Anti-Semitism,” call 503-631-3808.

    For many articles on “hate crimes” legislation and B’nai B’rith’s role in creating it, visit www.truthtellers.org.

    For a gripping 80-minute video documentary by Ted Pike, “Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians,” at $24.90 postpaid, call 503-631-3808, order online, or write

    National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe Proposed San Francisco Gun Ban a Bad Idea http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/oped_alan_SanFrancisco_gun_ban2005.htm contributing editor to   - Bob

[ ...but we promise, we'll protect you and take care of you and keep the boogie men away...  --  Bob]

By Alan Gottlieb

Banning the lawful possession of anything has never stopped people from getting it, and it should be a no-brainer in the City of San Francisco, where citizens are well-educated and intelligent, that the proposed ban on the sale or manufacture of firearms and possession of handguns will not prevent criminals from arming themselves.
The idea is evidently so bad that at least one of the original sponsors of the measure, City Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, has withdrawn her name from the ballot measure. Why the others continue to push this measure makes little sense, because a similar ban more than 20 years ago was struck down by the courts after the Second Amendment Foundation sued the city and then-mayor Dianne Feinstein.

Gun bans are purely a form of making a social statement, because only a raving lunatic could ever seriously believe that disarming law-abiding citizens, thus making them even more vulnerable to crime, would ever remove guns from the hands of criminals. By their very nature, criminals ignore existing law, and legislation that would make their victims easier prey can only make these thugs happier.

In recent years, legislation passed in Sacramento has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Democrat majority in California’s Legislature wants the Golden State to be as unfriendly to firearms owners as possible. Alas, all the emotional rhetoric used to support such legislation has yet to prevent a single crime. Bans on semiautomatic rifles have not stopped gang bangers in the Los Angeles area. They haven’t stopped crime in San Francisco, either, or anywhere else in the state for that matter.

What have these laws accomplished? Only to make it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to fight back; to burden honest gun owners with onerous regulations designed more to trip them up on technicalities and discourage them from owning firearms than to curb crime.

Proponents of the San Francisco ban – now formally titled Proposition H – have evidently grown up in a fairy tale world where good intentions invariably trump real life tragedies.

Proposition H does not pass the smell test for a city with the history of San Francisco. While banning the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition within the city, and banning possession of all handguns, there is an exemption for “any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers” as defined by the California Penal Code.

Translation: Police and a selection of other elites can have handguns in a city where the citizens are disarmed. For generations, the good citizens of San Francisco have created an image and lifestyle diametrically opposed to the concept of a police state where only cops have guns, but now comes Proposition H, which literally creates a police state environment, and far too many people are acting like lemmings, rushing to dive over that precipice, into a political and social abyss.

Perhaps the greatest fraud perpetrated on San Francisco, and the rest of the country, over the past several years is the notion that gun violence is some kind of health epidemic. This is a colossal prevarication, as if gun crime might be removed by minor surgery on the Constitution, or an application of salve to reduce swelling and itching.

The preamble to Proposition H even alludes to a report on gun crime from the San Francisco Department of Public Health. This explains a great deal about the grossly wrong-headed approach to crime that the sponsors of Proposition H have adopted.

We’re talking about crime here, not some malady that can be healed by rubbing it with an over-the-counter medication. Backers of this measure are confusing Proposition H with Preparation H.

Preparation H gives relief, but Proposition H will give San Franciscans nothing but grief from people who, it is painfully evident, have taken a rather anal approach to fighting violent crime. At this point in its history, the last thing San Francisco needs is another hemorrhoid.

Alan Gottlieb is chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org).
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y Four Americans flew with "Air Bin Laden" http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ contributing editor to   - Rodger

[How many more stories do we need before we realize Osama Bin Laden "Al Qaeda", terrorism, was not behind 911?  --  Rodger] August 22, 2005 -- Four Americans flew with "Air Bin Laden" flight transporting Bin Laden family members to Saudi Arabia and Europe nine days after 911. The post-911 domestic flights of Bin Laden family members out of the United States with the sanction of the Bush White House were not the only instances where Americans have flown with the family that spawned "Al Qaeda" leader Osama Bin Laden. WMR has obtained a passenger list from a September 20, 2001 Aero Services private charter flight from Le Bourget Airport, north of Paris,  to Geneva, and on to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (King Abdulaziz International Airport-OEJN). On the list are a number of Bin Ladens, as well as four Americans, including a Los Angeles Police Department officer named Jason Blum who flew to Le Bourget from Los Angeles.  A previous list provided to Sen. Frank Lautenberg showed Mr. Blum departing from the Bin Laden party in Boston.The newly obtained list shows he accompanied the Bin Ladens to Paris Le Bourget. The other three Americans on the passenger list are J.P. Buonono, Joseph Allen Wyka and Ricardo V. Pascetta. Because of these discrepancies, it is uncertain whether the destination information as stated on the manifest provided to Sen. Lautenberg (and presumably the 911 Commission) was, in fact, accurate. However, French intelligence is in possession of documents showing that some of the Americans accompanied the Bin Ladens to Jeddah. In addition, two Bin Ladens with U.S. citizenship were also on the charter flight: Khalil Sultan Binladen and Badr Ahmed Bin Laden. A British citizen, Akberali [sic] Moawalla [sic], identified by French intelligence as the same Akbar Moawala (the Tanzanian in the French intelligence report below regarding SICO and Fluor Corp.), was also on the flight. A Brazilian, Yemeni, and Indonesian were on the same flight. A Saudi diplomatic passport holder named Kholoud Osama Kurdi accompanied the passengers to Jeddah. What is significant about Mr. Kurdi is that the Bush administration claimed the Saudi flights were purely "private" in nature. Shafig Bin Laden, who had attended a Washington, DC meeting of the Carlyle Group at the Ritz Carlton Hotel on the morning of September 11 (George H. W. Bush and James Baker were present at the same meeting the day before), left the charter flight in Geneva, one of the centers for George H. W. Bush's international slush funds. The parties arriving at Le Bourget for the onward flight to Geneva and Jeddah flew from Los Angeles International, Dulles International, Boston Logan, and Orlando International. Click here for the Lautenberg list.

Right click on image to save it,  then open in your favorite image viewing program.

I N S I G H T Robertson Calls for Chavez Assassination http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/ap_on_re_us/robertson_assassination http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-22-robertson-_x.htm contributing editor to   - Rodger & Bill

[For the record, the bush cabal tried to kill President Chavez in 2002 by attempting to sabotage a commercial jet he was scheduled to be flying on (and killing dozens of innocent people in the process, if that means anything).  The plan to kill him failed along with a takeover of the Venezuelan government by Bush operatives.  Things like this are the reason we are feared and hated around the world.  Apparently brother Robertson thinks killing Chavez will prevent a war.   It would probably do the opposite.  Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.  --  Bill]

By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 23,12:21 PM ET
 

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." An official of a theological watchdog group on Tuesday criticized Robertson's statement as "chilling." "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club." "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

AP Photo:  Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson is shown July 17, 2003, in Virginia Beach, Va. Robertson suggested...

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." On Tuesday, critics objected to Robertson's statements. "It's absolutely chilling to hear a religious leader call for the murder of any political leader, no matter how much he disagrees with such a leader's policies or practices," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. David Brock, president of Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, said the remarks should discredit Robertson as a spokesman for the religious right. Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002. A Robertson spokeswoman, Angell Watts, said he would not do interviews Tuesday and had no statement elaborating on his remarks. A call seeking comment from the U.S. State Department was not immediately returned Tuesday.

'We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,' Robertson said.  By Gene Puskar, AP

Chavez was believed to be in Cuba, but his whereabouts were unknown and no media access was announced.

In Caracas, pro-Chavez legislator Desire Santos Amaral accused Robertson of shedding his Christian values.

"This man cannot be a true Christian. He's a fascist," Santos said. "This is part of the policies of aggression from the right wing in the North against our revolution."

Santos said she thinks U.S.-Venezuelan relations could still improve but comments by "charlatans and fascists" like Robertson only get in the way.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y Freedom Of Speech, RIP http://www.rense.com/general67/FRED.HTM contributing editor to   - Rodger

The silence is deafening.  I knell beside the bed and weep softly.  Rest in peace America and may God have mercy on us all.  --  Rodger]

By Judy Andreas, 8-21-5

Freedom of speech is dying an excruciating death. Watching it die is difficult enough, but knowing that, somehow, by my silence, I am complicit in the death, is unbearable. One thing is certain. I cannot stand by and do nothing. I cannot stand by and watch our freedoms die. I cannot stand by in tacit silence, while what's left of our freedom wriggles and squirms and gasps for air. There has got to be a mass resuscitation. There has got to be a way to breathe life back into our Bill of Rights. We are careening down a slippery slope into a disaster, the magnitude of which nobody has ever witnessed. You know I am right, don't you? You can feel it too, can't you?

How is this happening and when did it first begin? When did the first amendment wind up under the boot of fascism? When did "politically correct" become synonymous with censorship? When did the label "hate crime" become our new censoring device? When did "critic" become synonymous with "terrorist?" When did the ruling elite remove the word "free" from "free speech?"

All my life I have heard people question, "Why did people "follow orders" in Nazi Germany?" Look in the mirror folks. Maybe that's where the answer lies.

"Either you're with us, or you are with the terrorists." George Bush struggles to string his words into a coherent sentence. But is it coherent? Since when are questions and criticism verboten? Since when is honest dialogue and discussion a crime?

Yesterday I watched a short Internet video about Ernst Zundel. The host of the show was Dr. Hesham Tillawi and his guests were Paul Fromm and Ingrid Rimland. Mr. Fromm is with the Canadian Association for Free Expression. His organization reportedly goes to bat for people accused of "thought crimes". Ingrid Rimland is Ernst Zundel's wife and an accomplished writer of more than 6 books. She lives in Tennessee and owns, edits and controls The Zundelsite.

Perhaps I should begin with a bit of background for those of you who are not familiar with Ernst Zundel. But before I begin, let me admit that no matter how much I have read, I still have difficulty making sense of Mr. Zundel's tragic story. I am still not certain why he has been languishing in prison for the past few years.

Paul Fromm explained that from 1996 - 2001, the Canadian Government was trying to get control of Internet websites in other countries with the intention of shutting down certain of the sites. Mr. Zundel, a legal resident of Canada, who was, at that point, living in the U.S., was said to be associated with one such site: The Zundelsite which is edited and run by his wife, Ingrid. The Canadian Government stated that the nature of its contents was likely to expose Jews to hate and contempt. And yet, Ernst Zundel's wife's site was outside Canadian jurisdiction.

In February of 2003, INS agents and local sheriff deputies raided the Zundel home in Tennessee. They told Ernst that he had missed a hearing with immigration. The Zundels were taken aback. They had been awaiting notification of this hearing.

There was nothing the Zundels could say or do. And on that fateful night in 2003, handcuffs were slapped on Ernst Zundel and he was deported to Canada. (his last country of legal residence) He was imprisoned in Canada from February 16, 2003 until March 2, 2005. They called him "a threat to national security."

Since September 11, 2001, Governments have changed their definition of "dissent." They are now calling it "terrorism." Ernst Zundel was and is anything but a terrorist. In fact, he was a pacifist who urged his supporters NOT to engage in terrorism. In the 40 years he'd lived in Canada, he had fathered two children and had never committed a crime. But all that seemed irrelevant to the authorities.

Mr. Fromm told Dr. Tillawi that the Canadian Government was under tremendous pressure from groups such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and the League For Human Rights Of B'nai Brith to deport Zundel.

Canada then shipped Ernst to Germany which had a warrant out for his arrest. Germany was claiming that Zundel had used the Internet to violate Section 190 of the German Criminal Code which stated that it is an offense to "dishonor the memory of the dead."

Most of the German charges had to do with postings on the Zundelsite, which was in Tennessee and, to repeat, owned and operated by his wife, Ingrid, a U.S. citizen. And, to complicate matters further, the United States did not have any similar laws.

This November, Ernst Zundel is scheduled to go to trial and, if committed, he could face additional prison time of 5 years. In addition, he has been banned from America for 20 years because he allegedly missed an interview with immigration; an interview of which he not received notification of.

Ingrid Rimland explained that she cannot go to Germany to visit her husband because there is a warrant out for her arrest. The warrant is because of her website in America. This site has been on the Internet for 10 years.

Ernst Zundel is 66 years old and has been treated poorly in prison. In Canada he starved and froze. His health is suffering. He has been labeled a 'Holocaust Denier' and a 'White Supremacist' - two terms that have helped to stir up anti-Zundel sentiment. However, according to Mr. Fromm, neither label is true. Ernst does not deny the Holocaust - he is merely questioning some of the details.

Not long ago, I heard a discussion about Ernst Zundel, on National Public Radio. The members of the panel, were, in part, Jewish. They were quite blunt about their disdain for Mr. Zundel, and yet they said that he was entitled to express his views. "Nobody is asking anyone to agree with what he is saying; it is his right to speak that is the issue"

In our culture, it is totally admissible to question a variety of things. There are many people who publicly question the existence of God. There are people who write volumes insisting that Jesus Christ never existed. There are books that claim that religion is mind control and that the Bible was written by men in order to control other men. And yet, these people are not behind bars...and well they shouldn't be. These people have been awarded the right to question history and religion. What's different about Ernst Zundel's case??

Why shouldn't historical facts be open to public scrutiny and debate? Why isn't there a place for rational discourse? Why are unpopular views being labeled as "terrorism?" After all, if something is true, it will stand up under the light of careful scrutiny, won't it?

Dr. Norman Finkelstein is a Jewish author of some very controversial books. In his book, "The Holocaust Industry, " Dr. Finkelstein states that many powerful Zionist groups have used the Holocaust to amass vast sums of money. He states that the Holocaust has been used for fund raising for the survivors of the Hitler's detention camps. And, he continues, the survivors never received any of the funds. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been raised for Jewish causes because of the Holocaust. Over 700 billion has come from the United States.

There is something terribly wrong with this whole tragic story. And yet, I wonder, is this only the beginning?

On the 20th of August, a chilling article appeared in The Ottawa Citizen, a Canadian newspaper. A Jewish group had filed a complaint to the University of Ottawa against economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky, who was referred to as a "controversial left-leaning economist." Chossudovsky was accused of hosting an "anti-Semitic website."

The article talked about a forum that Mr. Chossudovsky moderated. It was a forum on which the Holocaust was discussed. On this forum, 9/11 and possible Israeli involvement were also discussed. None of the postings were written by Michel Chossudovsky and yet, under Canadian law, website owners can be liable for material they knowingly post, even if they have not produced it themselves.

"I know this isn't his own writing, but he's certainly got a responsibility for the website, which, I checked, is registered in his name," said Anita Bromberg, B'nai Brith's legal counsel and human rights co-ordinator."

What will happen? I don't know. The muzzling of questions and concerns is spreading like a deadly cancer.

The world is filled with problems which appear to be insurmountable. I don't know how to solve these problems, but one thing I do know: it is imperative that we examine all the possibilities. The solution will never come through fear and intimidation.

The solution will never come from shutting people up, scaring them, threatening them and imprisoning them because they merely dared to question.

We should all be questioning.

Copyright 2005 Judy Andreas, JUDE10901@AOL.com, www.judyandreas.com
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y 2 Illegal Immigrants Win (STEAL) Arizona Ranch in Court http://www.rense.com/general67/steal.htm contributing editor to   - Rodger

[Only in America.  Land of the free.  Home of the brave.  America, what a country.

Who owns the land?  Not only has "Born Again Christian" George W. Bush done absolutely nothing to protect our borders, (because he plans to abolish the borders with the FTAA, Free Trade Areas of the Americas, anyway.  With the stroke of a pin, illegal immigration problem solved.  How can anyone be in this country illegally if there is no border to illegally cross?  Problem solved.)  If you try to protect your own land, they will give it to the very people you're trying to protect it from.  How much more of this are Americans willing to accept?  But, that was Arizona.  They couldn't do that here and get away with it.  Could they?  Pass the Kool-aid and cookies.  --  Rodger ]

By Andrew Pollack Douglas, 8-20-5

Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left othe firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.

Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally.

The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them.

"Certainly it's poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land," said Morris S. Dees Jr., co-founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants in their lawsuit.

Mr. Dees said the loss of the ranch would "send a pretty important message to those who come to the border to use violence." The surrender of the ranch comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants and related crime along the border.

Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer "ridiculous."

"The illegals are coming over here," Mr. Dore said. "They are getting the American property. Hell, I'd come over, too. Get some American property, make some money from the gringos."

The immigrants getting the ranch, Edwin Alfredo Manca Gonzles and Fatima del Socorro Leiva Medina, could not be reached for comment. Kelley Bruner, a lawyer at the law center, said they did not want to speak to the news media but were happy with the outcome.

Ms. Bruner said that Mr. Manc=EDa and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related, would not live at the ranch and would probably sell it. Mr. Nethercott bought the ranch in 2003 for $120,000.

Mr. Manc=EDa, who lives in Los Angeles, and Ms. Leiva, who lives in the Dallas area, have applied for visas that are available to immigrants who are the victims of certain crimes and who cooperate with the authorities, Ms.Bruner said. She said that until a decision was made on their applications, they could stay and work in the United States on a year-to-year basis.

Mr. Manca and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Manca with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.

The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison.

Mr. Manca and Ms. Leiva also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owner of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe Sutton. The immigrants said the ordeal, in which they feared that they would be killed by the men they thought were soldiers, had left them with post-traumatic stress.

Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote.

Mr. Dees said Mr. Foote appeared to have no substantial assets, but Mr. Nethercott had the ranch. Shortly after the judgment, Mr. Nethercott gave the land to his sister, Robin Albitz, of Prescott, Ariz. The Southern Poverty Law Center sued the siblings, saying the transfer was fraudulent and was meant to avoid the judgment.

Ms. Albitz, a nursing assistant, signed over the land to the two immigrants last week. "It scared the hell out of her," Margaret Pauline Nethercott, the mother of Mr. Nethercott and Ms. Albitz, said of the lawsuit. "She didn't know she had done anything illegal. We didn't know they had a judgment against my son."

This was not the first time the law center had taken property from a group on behalf of a client. In 1987, the headquarters of a Ku Klux Klan group in Alabama was given to the mother of a boy whose murder was tied to Klansmen. Property has also been taken from the Aryan Nations and the White Aryan Resistance, Mr. Dees said.

Joseph Jacobson, a lawyer in Austin who represented Mr. Nethercott in the criminal case, said the award was "a vast sum of money for a very small indignity." Mr. Jacobson said the two immigrants were trespassing on Mr. Sutton's ranch and would have been deported had the criminal charges not been filed against Mr. Nethercott.

He criticized the law center for trying to get $60,000 in bail money transferred to the immigrants. While the center said the money was Mr. Nethercott's, Mr. Jacobson said it was actually Ms. Nethercott's, who mortgaged her home to post bail for her son.

Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote had a falling out in 2004, and Mr. Foote left Camp Thunderbird, taking Ranch Rescue with him. Mr. Nethercott then formed the Arizona Guard, also based on his ranch.

In April, Mr. Nethercott told an Arizona television station, "We're going to come out here and close the border with machine guns." But by the end of the month, he had started his prison sentence.

Now, only remnants of Camp Thunderbird remain on his ranch, a vast expanse of hard red soil, mesquite and tumbleweed with a house and two bunkhouses . One bunkhouse has a storeroom containing some camouflage suits, sleeping bags, tarps, emergency rations, empty ammunition crates, gun parts and a chemical warfare protection suit.

In one part of the ranch, dirt is piled up to form the backdrop of a firing range. An old water tank, riddled with bullet holes, is on its side. A platform was built as an observation post on the tower that once held the water tank.

Charles Jones, who was hired as a ranch hand about a month before Mr. Nethercott went to prison, put up fences and brought in cattle to graze. He has continued to live on the property with some family members.

But now the cattle are gone, and Mr. Jones has been told that he should prepare to leave. "It makes me sick I did all this work," he said.

Ms. Nethercott said she was not sure whether her son knew that his ranch was being turned over to the immigrants, but that he would be crushed if he did.

"That's his whole life," she said of the ranch. "He'd be heartbroken if he lost it in any way, but this is the worst way."
 

Immigrants get ranch on border of Arizona
By Beth DeFalco
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/archives/ci_2958375
 

Casey Nethercott In jail today

PHOENIX - An Arizona ranch once owned by a member of an armed group accused of terrorizing illegal immigrants has been turned over to two of the very people the owner had tried keep out of the country.    The land transfer is being done to satisfy a judgment against Casey Nethercott, a member of a self-styled border-watch group who is serving a five-year prison term for firearms possession.    Morris Dees Jr., chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented the immigrants, said he hoped the ruling would be a cautionary tale to anyone considering hostile measures against border crossers.    ''When we got into this case, ranchers all along the border were allowing these types to come on their property,'' said Dees. ''Now, they're very leery of it, especially when they see someone losing their ranch because of it.''    The ruling comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico declare states of emergency in their border counties, moves designed to free up money for enforcement while drawing more national attention to the problems of illegal immigration.    Nethercott was a member of the group Ranch Rescue, which works to protect private property along the southern U.S. border. In March 2003 he was accused of pistol-whipping Edwin Alfredo Mancia Gonzales, 26, at a Hebbronville, Texas, ranch near the Mexico border.    A jury deadlocked on the assault charge but convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

   Mancia and another immigrant traveling with him from El Salvador, Fatima del Socorro Leiva Medina, filed a civil lawsuit last year saying they were harmed while being held by Ranch Rescue members.

   Named in the suit were Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owners of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe and Betty Sutton.

   The Suttons settled for $100,000. Nethercott and Foote did not defend themselves, and a Texas judge issued default judgments in April of $850,000 against Nethercott and $500,000 against Foote.

   Nethercott transferred ownership of his 70-acre Douglas ranch to his sister. But the sister gave up ownership to settle the judgment when challenged by the immigrants' lawyers.

   The transfer of the ranch outraged border-watch groups.
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y Cindy Sheehan, Sets the Record Staight or Not? http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan-mother-of-spc-casey.html contributing editor to   - Bob

[On August 13 (this month)  reported a story about some comments Cindy Sheehan made.  Now, we get to decide if she really said them.  --  Tribble]

posted by Tom at 8/10/2005 10:32:00 PM

Sheehan says someone else made up the "my son died for Israel" quote that has been attributed to her

COOPER: You were also quoted as saying, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism." How responsible do you believe Israel is for the amount of terrorism in the world?

SHEEHAN: I didn't say that.

COOPER: You didn't say that? OK.

SHEEHAN: I didn't -- I didn't say -- I didn't say that my son died for Israel. I've never said that. I saw somebody wrote that and it wasn't my words. Those aren't even words that I would say.

I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved and it needs to be more fair and equitable but I never said my son died for Israel.

COOPER: OK, I'm glad I asked you that because, you know, as you know, there's tons of stuff floating around on the Internet on sites of all political persuasions.

SHEEHAN: I know and that's not -- yes.

COOPER: So, I'm glad we had the opportunity to clear that.

SHEEHAN: Yes, and thank you because those are not my words. Those aren't -- that doesn't even sound like me saying that.

COOPER: OK. I'm very glad we got that...

SHEEHAN: And I have read it. I have read it. I'm glad you did too.

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES One Woman's Protest Aired August 15, 2005

This is a quote that was attributed to her on the Internet, it is false according to Sheenan: "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse."

UPDATE: Sheehan is charging the person who she asked to send the email with "anti-Semitism"*

"Sheehan now says she never wrote that, insisting her e-mail was "doctored" by a "former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism." In fact, the man who sent Sheehan's letter to ABC, James Morris, has posted his own messages on-line, condemning the war in Iraq as "all about Israel." But Morris says Cindy Sheehan's letter was "in no way doctored." - Brit Hume Fox News

"The email that Cindy Sheehan sent to me (which included a request to forward it to ABC's 'Nightline' on her behalf) was in no way doctored. I forwarded the original email (as received from Cindy this past March)to Emily Lenzner (who is handling the matter for ABC News) as she confirmed that she received it yesterday." - James Morris

"Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them." - - Patrick J. Buchanan The American Conservative

Sheehan's denial doesn't change the facts about the motives for attacking Iraq. In reference to Iraq, Philip Zelikow said during a war-on-terror forum at the University of Virginia Law School on Sept. 10, 2002: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?" he asked a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002", Philip Zelikow explains, "I'll tell you what the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dares not speak its name because...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically because it's not a popular sell." Good research by David Peterson and William Blum

Philip Zelikow, was executive director of the September 11 commission. He also served on the National Security Council. He was on the Bush transition team, and was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003. - Business Week Online ("Blame Bush for What Came After 9/11; The real issue isn't why the U.S wasn't ready for the attack, but why the Administration used the tragedy to invade Iraq," April 15). "Therein, the author, Ciro Scotti, quotes a speech that the 9/11 Commission's Executive Director, Philip D. Zelikow, delivered at the University of Virginia Law School on September 10, 2002---several months before the Bush regime empanelled the 9/11 Commission, and therefore several months before it appointed Zelikow to be its Executive Director." - David Peterson

Zelikow ADMITS that he said the war on Iraq was really about Israel's security and not about US security. See link: Philip Zelikow Executive Director for the 9/11 Commission on C-SPAN

"The Israeli lobby
Philip Zelikow is of the type of whom it is customarily said: "He has impeccable establishment credentials". He is currently executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Between 2001 and 2003 he served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. Before his appointment to PFIAB he was part of the Bush transition team in January 2001. And in 1995 he co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice.
It's recently been revealed that in 2002 he publicly stated that a prime motive for the upcoming invasion of Iraq was to eliminate a threat to Israel." The Anti-Empire Report, No. 9, April 3, 2004 by William Blum

*Was Sheehan pressured into denying what she originally wrote about the motive for the War on Iraq or is she under so much pressure that she doesn't remember correctly? Why isn't the media exploring if powerful individuals influenced our government to attack a country that didn't attack us, didn't threaten to attack us and had no connection to 9/11? Are Sheehan's PR people (Fenton Communications) the reason she is now backpedaling about writing the letter?

"Sheehan subsequently implied, through a spokesperson at Fenton Communications, that Morris had hacked into her e-mail. Later, Fenton Communications and Sheehan backed off the hacking claim, but both maintain that the words in the letter about Israel are not her own." — Blake Wilson Slate.com

"There is other proof that Sheehan wrote the whole letter. After she sent the letter to Morris, Sheehan also e-mailed it to several other people, including Tony Tersch, a retiree living in Thailand, and Skeeter Gallagher. Both belong to a small Internet bulletin board called Bull Yard. Tersch had become her correspondent after contacting her out of personal and political sympathy. At Gallagher's request, Tersch posted Sheehan's letter to Bull Yard on March 17. Here is the letter as it appears there. This is the version that has been circulating, and from which Slate quoted. Tersch has confirmed that he received the letter from Sheehan directly and has stated that he did not doctor the e-mail before posting it.

Unless Sheehan is the victim of an elaborate Morris-Tersch conspiracy quietly put in motion on March 17, months before she became famous, those are her words." — Blake Wilson Slate.com

"I believe Pat Buchanan's comment is right on track and useful. The late Ambassador George Ball said on several occasions that Israel lobby's most powerful instrument in intimidating critics of Israel is the reckless charge of anti-Semitism. Cindy is now under that reckless charge and trying to escape. I feel sorry for her. I hope I live long enough to see the day when the news media and the public at large permit unintimidated free speech in discussing U.S. policy in the Middle East. It is a sad but clear fact that Israel's lobby--consisting of both ultra-Orthodox and secular Jews as well as fundamentalist Christian elements--has a tight grip on U.S. policy in that region. It's the proverbial elephant in the room. Everyone knows the elephant is Israel, but hardly anyone is willing to mention it. Today, no one, not even a Gold Star mother, can note the gross pro-Israel bias in U.S. policy and its dreadful cost to the American people without being accused of anti-Semitism.  Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the rare exceptions. He identified the elephant publicly and stood his ground." - Paul Findley 08/20/2005

Paul Findley served 22 years as an Illinois congressman and was a senior member of the House Middle East Committee. Findley points out that there is an unwillingness for open debate among politicians with regard to U.S. policy in the Middle East and blames AIPAC. He points out the cause and effect of US support of Israel and the anger around the world because of this unjust support and the violent reactions to US support of Israel like the attacks on 9/11.
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y We should Stay in Iraq -- for Decades... http://federalistpatriot.us/current/ contributing editor to   - Bob

[Never let it be said that  does not consider or try to present multiple views.  --  Tribble]

19 August 2005, Federalist Patriot No. 05-33, Friday Digest

The usual Demo-gogue suspects -- Kennedy, Kerry and company -- are increasing the tenor of their demands that the Bush administration commit to a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. A few misguided Republicans have even signed on to this legislative folly. Insisting that we cap our military support for the new Iraqi government is a dangerous political ploy intended to help Demos rally their peacenik constituency in the run-up to next year's midterm elections. Dangerous, because challenging the administration to agree to a timetable only emboldens Jihadis, who would very much like to move the frontlines of the Long War from their turf to ours.

The Demos know President George Bush will not agree to such a timetable. As the president has said repeatedly, "Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld protests that any such deadline for withdrawal would "throw a lifeline to terrorists." Indeed, but it is always easier to sell anti-war rhetoric like "give peace a chance" than it is to advocate peace through superior firepower, and to use force in defense of critical U.S. national interests.

For eight long years, the Clinton administration pursued a policy of appeasement, particularly in regard to Middle Eastern policy and pursuit of Islamic terrorists. Terrorists were classified as mere "criminals" then, including those Jihadi fanatics who first bombed the WTC's north tower in 1993, who bombed the Khobar Towers in 1996, who bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and who bombed the USS Cole in 2000. Consequently, Clinton's negligent inaction emboldened this enemy, and the result was a devastating attack on our homeland just months after the Bush administration took office in 2001.

"Peace" had its chance under Clinton, but President Bush made the difficult decision to give war a chance. Remarkably, the outcome has, to date, pre-empted any further attacks on U.S. soil -- which was, after all, its primary objective. The transition from an ineffectual policy of containment to one of pre-emption was the most significant strategic military shift since WWII. To be sure, there have been setbacks, and President Bush bears a heavy and heartfelt burden for those uniformed Patriots who have given their lives to protect ours.

If we did check out of Iraq, as suggested by a growing chorus on the Left, al-Qa'ida and other Islamists will not only rule that nation -- they will eventually control the entire region, with the possible exception of Israel. The "exit timetable" crowd knows this, but that hasn't prevented them from using this issue as political fodder -- and from using it to undermine support for our military personnel and our operations in the Middle East. Of course, this places both those personnel and our national security in peril.

One need only ask the exit advocates, "Exit where, and for how long?" Because we didn't finish the job in Operation Desert Storm, we had to return with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Reality dictates that if we don't finish the job now, we'll have to return again, and likely at a far greater cost in terms of American lives.

Not only should we not set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but we should seek to establish an alliance with the Iraqi government in order to maintain a strong military presence in the region. How long? As long as there are Islamofascists bent on detonating a nuclear device in some U.S. urban center and sending our nation into economic ruin.

According to The Patriot's well-placed military and intelligence sources, one closely guarded objective in securing a free Iraq is to establish a forward-deployed presence in the Middle East -- a presence that would certainly include personnel but whose primary component would be massive military-equipment depots that could be tapped for future rapid-deployment military operations in the region.

This forward-base objective is critical, given that it will ensure our military presence in the heart of Jihadistan, and an ability to project force in the region quickly without having to ramp up via sea and airlift. This alone will pay rich dividends by way of maintaining peace through preparedness.

The new Iraqi government will likely extend an invitation to the U.S. to establish two bases in southern Iraq now that, as you may recall, our friends the Saudis have expelled our fighting forces from their country. The proposed base locations are nowhere near Iraqi urban centers -- which is to say, they are highly securable. We expect this new military presence to consist primarily of limited personnel, but with substantial assets transferred from bases in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Of course, those who claim that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is the problem will wail about the establishment of permanent base operations in the region. Fact is, however, until the last Israeli is dead and the West no longer dominates the world economy (and, thus, culture), Jihadis will not rest.

Previously, this column has outlined the nature of asymmetric threats like Islamist terrorist regimes -- some given safe harbor by Islamic states, some seeking to create new Islamofascist states. (See the three-part series on U.S. national security at FederalistPatriot.US/Alexander) On the importance of our holding the frontline against Jihadistan in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently wrote: "The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than about the clash of ideologies, culture and religious beliefs. Because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than that in Vietnam. If a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad or any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries or Islamic minorities in non-Islamic countries would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societieswithin reach of militant Islam would be imperiled."

Indeed, the safety and stability of the free world would be imperiled.

This is the Long War, Islamofascism is the enemy, and Iraq is the front line. If we are serious about pre-empting Jihadi terrorism (despite Demo political mischief), we must not abandon Iraq. Of course, if we follow the Kennedy and Kerry plan, Islamofascists, who will control the region, won't have to attack on U.S. soil, they will just cut off U.S. oil -- and bring the entire West to its knees -- until it submits to Islam.

Of course, no Western political leader is going allow that scenario -- not even Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder. These Jihadi cave dwellers, the Islamists who fly planes into buildings and bomb Iraqi children at open markets, don't share Western (predominantly Judeo-Christian) values. To be sure, they have no compunction about reducing your standard of living to something less than their subsistence -- and they will, given the opportunity.

"The terrorists cannot defeat us on the battlefield. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve. That will not happen on my watch. Withdrawing our troops from Iraq prematurely would betray the Iraqi people and would cause others to question America's commitment to spreading freedom and winning the war on terror. So we will honor the fallen by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, and by doing so we will ensure that freedom and peace prevail." --President George W. Bush

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!" --Anti-war poster child Cindy Sheehan, who, in her new MSM heroine status as "Peace Mom," now claims that she found President Bush "cold and calloused" after her visit with him in June of 2004, following the death of her son in Iraq.

Curiously, immediately following her visit with the president, she said: "We have a lot of respect for the office of the President, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us. I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." What a difference a few media lights can make...

As for 24-year-old Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, he was a mechanic (not an infantryman) who was killed in action after volunteering for a rapid-rescue force deployed to help save fellow soldiers in a convoy that was ambushed near Sadr City. Spc. Sheehan proclaimed, "I go where my chief goes." His sister Carly says, "He didn't have to go, but he was all about 'God and his country.' He chose the military because...it was all he wanted to do his whole life." Indeed, Casey enlisted, and he re-enlisted in April of 2004, in order to go to Iraq. He died heroically serving "the man beside him." Despite Cindy Sheehan's disgracing her son's sacrifice, the nation accords him full honor due.
 
 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain** Iran, Venezuela Discuss Oil Embargo http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0819.shtml contributing editor to   - Rodger

[Most people think the US gets most of it's oil from the middle east but that is not the case.  The US gets the biggest percentage from Venezuela.
    Recently the US military has been secretly trying to undermine and oust Pres. Chaves to put someone in power more amenable to the Bush white house.
    As you should be aware, Venezuela has signed an agreement with Iran (The worlds third largest oil deposit), China (The worlds fastest growing and largest economy)and Russia (The worlds number one supplier of military arms).  Also you should be aware that Russia and Chine, for the first time in history, are participating in joint military games.
    Pres. Chaves has promised Venezuela's oil to China.  So has Iran.  What has Russia and China promised?
    Now we see Venezuela and Iran discussing an oil embargo against who?  If you think gas is high now, just wait.  I sent the article yesterday about $5.00 per gallon gas in 2006.
    Bush is under pressure from his bosses in Israel to send our sons and daughters into Iran.  I don't know if it will happen this way or not.  Looks like the stage is set.  What do you think?
    Beat the drums slowly, play the fife lowly, play the death march as the war drums beat on.  --  Rodger ]

TEHRAN — "Oil is the lifeline of the West, and most of the West's military industries are dependent on it,” the Tehran Times suggested in an editorial last week. Irritated by a recent resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that called for a halt to Iran’s uranium conversion program, the newspaper suggested that oil-rich states form a united front and use oil as a tool to confront "western neocolonialist countries."

In Venezuela, Pres. Hugo Chavez has taken the idea a step further, threatening to halt oil exports if alleged attacks on his country continue, according to Agence France Press. Appearing last week as a witness at a symbolic “anti-imperialist court” in Caracas, Chavez said, “Washington’s molestation may cause more serious problems; our two oil tankers going to the U.S. everyday may go to another country.” He added that the “Northern America market is not compulsory for us.” Venezuela exports 1.5 million barrels of oil to the United States daily.

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the Iranian newspaper’s editorial described oil as “the most potent economic weapon for settling scores,” and suggested an embargo on oil sales to the United States and European countries that are pressuring Iran to end its nuclear program. It also criticized what it sees as a double standard, noting that Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and that most of them have conducted tests.

In an interview with an Israeli TV station from his Texas ranch, Pres. Bush expressed doubts that the European Union’s diplomatic initiative to defuse the crisis over Iran’s nuclear activities would succeed, and refused to rule out the use of force. "All options are on the table," he said.

Israel has been prodding Washington to get tougher, charging that Iran resumed its nuclear activities because it sensed the "weakness" of the international community. "Iran made this decision because they are getting the impression that the United States and the Europeans are spineless," a senior official from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office told Agence France Press.

The IAEA’s resolution expressed "serious concern" at Iran's resumption of uranium conversion and set a Sept. 3 deadline for its report on the country’s compliance. “We want diplomacy to work,” Bush commented, “and, you know, we will see if we are successful or not. As you know, I'm skeptical."
 
 

Health / nutrition Mental Health Screening in Schools Signals the End of Parental Rights http://www.sierratimes.com/05/05/16/24_209_102_203_25370.htm contributing editor to   - Rodger

[We've been warning of this and what "born again christian" George W. Bush wanted to do to our children.  Here it is this school year.  I thank God my children are grown.  What are you going to do parents?  --  Rodger]

[   has written in the following issues -
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200406/200406index.html#23
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200410/200410index.html#27
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200411/200411index.html#18
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200501/issue.html#10
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200505/issue.html#04
and in this issue at  http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200508/issue.html#16entitled "Are Half of All Americans Mentally Ill?"
None can say they have not been warned.  --  Tribble]

by Nancy Levant

In the 2005-2006 school year, all parents will receive written notice of new policies from your children’s schools. Many schools will ask you to sign permission slips, allowing school counselors or “advocates” to have conversations with your children. You will be told how your local schools are now involved in vision and dental screenings, learning disabilities and speech impediment screenings, and other acts of kindness, but watch for the small print or the extra little blurb, which states that your children will also be evaluated for emotional wellness. Watch for wording like “happiness indicators” or “family participation.”

The fact is that our president has mandated that every American child, age 3 through 18, is federally ordered to be evaluated for mental health issues and to receive “enforced” treatment. Welcome to President Bush’s New Freedom Initiative and New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Welcome to life-long profiling and drug addictions, New Freedom-style.

52 million students and six million adults working in schools, according to this commission, will be tested and should flush out at least 6 million people, or shall we say new customers, who will then be mandated to receive “treatment.” What treatment does our president’s commission have in mind? The newest drugs in the pharmaceutical pipelines, of course. The commission recommends “specific medications for specific conditions.”

One of the state-of-the-art treatments, and most expensive, is an implanted capsule – yes, that’s right, implanted. The capsule delivers medication into a child’s body without the child having to swallow a pill or the need for parental permission for dispensation.

The New Freedom Commission named the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) a model treatment plan. Medical algorithms are a flowchart-style treatment indicator. If you have A symptom and B symptom, take C medication. TMAP began with the University of Texas, big pharma, and the mental health and corrections system in Texas. The American Psychiatric Association concurs that TMAP is brilliant.

However, the New Freedom Initiative and Commission is a political-big pharma marriage. Many companies who supported TMAP were also major contributors to Bush’s re-election funds. For example, Eli Lilly manufactures olanzapine - one of the drugs recommended in the New Freedom plan, and furthermore, George Herbert Walker Bush was once a member of Lilly’s board of directors. Our current President Bush appointed Lilly’s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Eighty-two percent of Lilly’s $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000 went to Bush and the Republican Party. Do tell…

Texas Algorithm grossed over 4 billion dollars in 2003 and olanzapine is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris claims that 70 percent of olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid. And lo and behold, guess who is now able to bill Medicaid for health services? Public schools, of course, as they are now under the big pharma-political profits/pay-back umbrella once they adopt screening policies. Public schools can now be paid to screen and drug your kids.

Now, if you ever wonder, ever again, if public-private partnerships care about people, then you need a brain transplant. Your children are now the legislated guinea pigs and lab rats for the pharmaceutical companies who bought and paid for our president’s campaign. Favors are now returned to those companies in the form of enforced, juvenile customers, their health, and their future drug addictions.

But wait, there is more. The New Freedom Commission also calls for enforced treatment. That means that parents have no rights to refuse the treatment recommenced by TMAP and other drug dispensing corporate-bureaucratic apparatuses. And as the mental health bureaucracy is also involved in this financial game of insidious cruelty, parents and families are also to be investigated via the result of their children’s screenings in schools. In other words, schools are now the across-the board, or shall I say nation, diagnostic tool for big pharma and child control.

And there’s more. The U.N. Agenda 21 has also called for total intrusion into schools and children lives. No more religion, no more individuality, no more real education, no more real grades, no more real teaching, no more teacher respect for parents, and no more truth from teachers or principals. This sounds very familiar and very political to me. And I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: if you are of a religious ilk and you refuse to allow your children to be abused by our “educational” system, the stage is being set for you to lose physical custody of your children. I suggest that you read this: Rethinking Orphanages for the 21st Century by Richard McKenzie, ed

Still got your kids in public schools? Shame on you, and may God bless your poor children and forgive you.
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y Economic Crash: Planned? http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9817 contributing editor to   - Rodger

By Nancy Levant

Diesel-powered trucks, each costing to the tune of $440,000 and paid for by federal Homeland Security Act grants, are setting up shop in our states. It is reported that these “communications” vehicles should help police and “other officials” to better communicate to respond to ”flooding, ice storms, tornadoes, major crashes, terrorist attacks or other disasters.” Law-enforcement officials will have the ability to access the Internet, fax, copy, print digital photographs, and to put officials on the same radio frequencies so they can easily communicate. It is reported that these communications vehicles also contain a conference room and a crime lab. This is the released-for-public-consumption information about these vehicles - and all for the good of American people – just like fluorinated water and the mental health screening of 52 million of our children…

I’ve written many times that the stage is being set for “crisis.” Our military is over-extended and out of the country. Policing groups have been established and set up non-stop in each and every state with names like Neighborhood Watch, COPS (Community-Oriented Policing Services) funded by Department of Justice grants, Citizens Corp; militarily trained police and the blurring of their roles, high tech surveillance equipment in every store and on streets and buildings, Homeland Security, FEMA and the executive orders that allow it to suspend the Constitution and confiscate food, firearms, money, water stores, and even the homes of American citizens, staffed detention camps in America (hundreds of them), RFID technology, satellite surveillance and mapping, the massive buying up of American wilderness areas and watersheds – on and on and on – and the permanent and legislated loss of our right to any kind of privacy, coupled with the herding of American people into deed-restricted settlements while borders are open for all illegal passage. I’ve also read that foreign troops are training on American soil. Something is very wrong, and what is going on has very little to do with what we think of as homeland security. Preparations for crisis are in full swing, but the question is, what crisis, and is the crisis also planned?

What has happened in this country in the last decade is far beyond peculiar and terrifying. Look at our schools. Look at the legislation, and executive orders that have mandated, MANDATED, that our children be rated by degrees of sanity based upon their levels of religiosity, their family economic status, their federal test scores, and compliancy in consensus-style classroom groups. Pregnant women are to have sanity ratings, as well, and “treatment” is imposed legislatively. This is homeland security, or is it setting the stage for population control, which is also a mandate of the U.N. and big conservation?

Folks, something horrendous is afoot – horrendous. The changes sweeping this nation, while our politicians smile and wave, are horrifying. In fact, there have been so many changes that we are simply clueless, and will remain so until “the crisis” hits. I suggest to you that with crisis set to unfold, actions will be set into place that will be unconscionable to American people, and that their response to our reaction is what is being secretly carried out in this nation.

In my opinion, global governance, not terrorism, is the bottom line. Do extremists around the globe want to destroy America? Maybe, but what does that have to do with the mental health screening of every American child and socialist indoctrination in our public schools?

I have also said before that if global governance was such a great thing, why did our politicians go to such extreme measures to cover it up? Why did they hide, and continue to hide, the legislation that has brought Agenda 21 into the very fabric of our culture? And why the hundreds and hundreds of executive orders, issued by several presidents, that have acted directly in mission with the mandates of Agenda 21?

Here’s my guess and magic wand: I believe the crisis is likely going to be the permanent economic crash of America. The big players in the American stock markets pulled out about 2 years ago, many of the big players sold other U.S. assets, and most own homes overseas. I suggest you watch for an exodus out of the U.S. by the American aristocracy. When the markets crash, as they have been poised to do for years, as our nation is completely bankrupt and beholding to foreign creditors, the immediate result upon American citizens is going to be utter chaos. Our money will be frozen. The value of our money will fall to nothing, we will lose mortgaged homes in the multi-millions, and all civil liberties will be suspended. Massive numbers of citizens will be arrested and entire communities will be in lock-down. Mobility privileges will be suspended. Access to food and water will be restricted. Martial law will rule the day until we, the people, accept global governance, which will be ushered in - no ifs, ands, or buts - with the final crash of the United States.

Planned? You bet. Remember that we have been told, over and over again by our leader, “It’s a new world!” Bill Clinton told us the same. So Did Bush Sr., and many others before him. And if you simply look at the tens of thousands of commissions, partnerships, memorandums of understanding, treaties, and massive gatherings in foreign countries that have evolved and taken place over the last 3 decades around the issue of globalization, it doesn’t take a genius to see the graffiti on the wall. Global governance is here. America is just waiting for a highly orchestrated kick in the head that will force her to full compliance. Those are my two cents. May God bless American patriots and children.

    Federal Observer contributing columnist Nancy Levant is a former high school English teacher who is now a home schooling parent and advocate. She is opposed to exposing children to large campus cultures that are historically and poorly controlled by government employees. Equally, she is a writer for freedom and land rights issues and opposes the United Nation's Agenda 21 implementation in America.
 
 

I am from the gubment, & am here to help you - NOT License Plates Get Chipped http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68429,00.html# contributing editor to   - Rodger

[If you follow the news and world events, you know that what happens in either of Great Britain, Australia, and the uSA, usually happens soon in the others of those 3.  The technology of the world today is being pushed everywhere.  --  Tribble]

Brit License Plates Get Chipped
By Mark Baard  |   Also by this reporter  |   02:00 AM Aug. 09, 2005 PT

The British government is preparing to test new high-tech license plates containing microchips capable of transmitting unique vehicle identification numbers and other data to readers more than 300 feet away.

Officials in the United States say they'll be closely watching the British trial as they contemplate initiating their own tests of the plates, which incorporate radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags to make vehicles electronically trackable.
 

U.K. manufacturer Hills Numberplates makes this sample metal e-Plate. Photo: Mark Baard	An e-Plate reader (green object shown in lower right) and housing can be mounted on any light pole. Photo: Courtesy of Hills Numberplates	This still from a corporate video shows the data captured from an e-Plate by an RFID reader. Photo: Courtesy of Hills Numberplates	CCTV cameras that capture number plates will be supplemented by readers that scan RFID license plates, such as the e-Plate, during the British test. Photo: Courtesy of Watching Them, Watching Us

"We definitely have an interest in testing an RFID-tagged license plate," said Jerry Dike, chairman of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and director of the Vehicle Titles and Registration Division of the Texas Department of Transportation.

So-called "active" RFID tags, like the one in the e-Plate made by the U.K. firm Hills Numberplates, have built-in batteries, allowing them to broadcast data much farther than the small passive tags used to track inventory at retail stores.

Active RFID is already enjoying limited use on U.S. roadways. Under a new program, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is issuing RFID tags to foreign freight and passenger vehicles as they enter the country.

The technology is also used in electronic toll-collection systems in the United States to automatically charge participating drivers as they breeze past unstaffed toll booths. In the San Francisco Bay Area, FasTrak toll transponders are also polled at readers away from the toll booths, to determine how quickly traffic is moving through particular areas.

Proponents argue that making such RFID tags mandatory and ubiquitous is a logical move to counter the threat of terrorists using the roadways, and that it will scoop up insurance and registration scofflaws in the process.

"We see tremendous advantages to the (e-Plate) for everything from verifying registration and insurance to Amber (missing child) Alerts," said Dike. But because the RFID plates can cost 10 times more than ordinary plates, they will need strong support from governors and state legislatures before they are tested in the states, Dike added. "It will be several years before Texas will be able to test the e-Plate" on any of the 4 million to 4.5 million cars it registers annually.

Privacy advocates are less enthusiastic about the technology.

"It's too easy for (RFID license plates) to become a back-door surveillance tool," said Jim Harper, director of information studies at libertarian think tank the Cato Institute and a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.

Civil libertarians don't object to an RFID automatic toll-collection system that "anonymizes" vehicles in databases once a transaction is completed. But they doubt the government -- given its thirst for intelligence -- will use such privacy-protection measures. From a law-enforcement perspective, "there is no reason to have privacy for anything," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Active RFID is a huge improvement over cameras that use optical character recognition to read license plates and are accurate only 75 to 90 percent of the time, said Michael Wolf, president of the EVI Management Group.

The U.K. Department for Transport gave the official go-ahead for the microchipped number plates (as they are called in the United Kingdom) last week, and the trial is expected to begin later this year. The government has been tight-lipped about the details. One of the vendors bidding to participate in the trial said it would start with smartplates added to some police cars.

The point of the test is to see whether microchips will make number plates harder to tamper with and clone, said U.K. Department for Transport spokesman Ian Weller-Skitt.

Many commuters use counterfeit plates to avoid the London congestion charge, a fee imposed on passenger vehicles entering central London during busy hours.
 
 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain** Selling God is a Lucrative Business http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/eveningnews/main704903.shtml contributing editor to   - Rodger

[What a great story to follow the proceeding one entitled ""christian" Evangelising Promote Killing for Conversion".  Moreover, for all those listed in that other story, and many more, the word "Business" is VERY appropriate.  They DO NOT promote anything close to accurate in Scripture, but they have honed their "craft" (business) for extracting the wealth of their stockholders (followers).  Since all but 100% of these charlatans are incorporated and/or licensed, they are most definitely businesses and officers of businesses.  Therefore, the masses who attend the regular meetings are stockholders, albeit without any dividend benefits.  Think about it, annual receipts of 55 million bucks and a new building costing 90 million bucks for seating 16,000 people and planning to house 100,000 people.  Make no mistake about it, THIS IS A BUSINESS.  Besides all that, if they understood a little of Scripture, they would know and admit that THEY can not save anyone, that only one entity can and he will only do it when he returns.  If you know anything of history, the catholics used to have process where the people could buy their way to heaven.  The daughters of that harlot are doing the same thing today - "give us your money and god will bless you".  Is it not odd that the stockholders NEVER realize that the money is going to a business and NOT to any god.  A certain business in North Little Rock, Arkansas called "1st Assembly" collects each week, from its stockholders, about 10,000 - 15,000 bucks.  Make no mistake, I am not opposed to a business making money, but they should be honest and truthful with their customers and stockholders.  --  Tribble]

HOUSTON, June 28, 2005

"Last year, Lakewood brought in $55 million. Sales of pastor Joel Osteen's book "Your Best Life Now" became an instant best seller. But he makes no apologies for his style or his success."
 

(CBS) Houston may be nowhere near heaven or Hollywood, but on Sunday mornings, it feels like a little of both. Joel Osteen is pastor of Lakewood Church, the largest evangelical church in America with 30,000 weekly attendants. With a TV ministry, it's watched in at least 100 countries. His production staff and studio rival any network. As CBS News Correspondent Byron Pitts reports, Osteen looks like an anchorman, talks like a Southern salesman and runs this congregation like a CEO. Asked if it's part message and part marketing, Osteen says: "To me, we're marketing hope." And hope sells. Last year, Lakewood brought in $55 million. Sales of Osteen's book "Your Best Life Now" became an instant best seller. But he makes no apologies for his style or his success. "We need to be excellent for the Lord," says Osteen. "There's nothing that says we can't come in and have great sound and great lighting and be on time and have this service more produced if you'll call it that, because, you know what, God deserves the best."

Lakewood Church pastor Joel Osteen  (Photo: CBS)

After being diagnosed with a rare form of breast cancer, Nada Couture was drawn to Osteen's church for spiritual healing. "It speaks to a lot of young people and a message that world needs to hear today," says Couture. "Not a preaching at you message, but a preaching with you thing." And preaching to the young is something evangelicals across the country have mastered by offering everything from Christian-themed parks to rock bands. Critics like Notre Dame sociology professor Michael Emerson say it cheapens religion by making it just another commodity for people to consume. They call it "feel-good theology." "Religion changes to nothing more than 'make me feel good,' and there's no sacrifice," says Emerson. That's not how they see it at Lakewood.

Osteen preaches to his Houston congregation.  (Photo: CBS)

"The Bible says it's the goodness of God that leads people to repentance, and you know the more we preach hope and that God is good for you, the more people we will see come and get their lives turned around," says Osteen. If Osteen's Lakewood Church is the Cadillac of all mega churches, then this new facility will be the Hummer. It's the old Compaq Center where the Houston Rockets played professional basketball and where Osteen hopes to soon save souls. It's a $90 million facility that will seat 16,000 people, double the current space. Osteen sees a day when up to 100,000 will stop in for weekly services. "It's the same message that people were preaching hundreds and hundreds of years ago, we're just repackaging it," he says. Osteen says it's a new day, and God's people need a new house.

The services are also broadcast on television.  (Photo: CBS)

 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid* "christian" Evangelising Promote Killing for Conversion http://www.rense.com/general67/wod.htm contributing editor to   - Bill

[Do you recognize these names -  Joyce Meyer,  Joel Osteen,  Gregory Dickow,  Benny Hinn,  John Hagee,  Dr. David Jeremiah,  Pastor Kenneth Hagin Jr.,  Dr. Adrian Rogers,  Kenneth Copeland,  Dr. Creflo Dollar,  Bill Gaither,  Jesse Duplantis,  Jack Van-Impe,  Pat Robertson,  Dr. Reginald Cherry,  Hal Lindsey,  Dr. Frederick Price,  Dr. Charles Stanley,  Billy Graham  and many more?  They are promoted by TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network).  Do you watch or listen to any of them?  Besides the false doctrines they teach, they are now associated with the following image.  I regularly am chastised by self proclaimed "christians" that my harshness is not very "godly".  These same self proclaimed "christians" will constantly proclaim their god is a loving god and a god of peace.  So why does TBN promote converting people to "christianity" by FORCE?  --  Tribble]

The website is FORCEMINISTRIES - http://www.forceministries.com/ and sports a flashy animated intro featuring men with automatic weapons ready, willing and able to kill... apparently for Christ! "Imparting" faith in Christ with an M4?? The website is listed officially as part of the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) "contact" information at http://www.nmtv.org/index.php/9/4/F.html

A Picture Is Worth A 1000 words

Comment by Alton Raines - 8-19-5

This doesn't surprise me, coming from the TBN crowd! What a sick, revolting display of the flesh! Of human evil convinced of its goodness! It defies every tenet of Christian virtue. Disturbed pseudo-christians like this do nothing but bring reproach upon the name of Christ and upon all Christians. All the flowery doctrinal gibberish found within the deeper pages of this site cannot undo the central imagery and obvious war-minded, murder-centered justification for evil in Christ's name.

This demonstrates boldly how warped the doctrinal malaise is within the non-denominational, evangelical, charismatic churches in America. It's no doubt rooted in the rotten "Kingdom Now" and "Dominion" theologies which have gained popularity since ultra-right wing NeoCons, claiming to be 'conservative Christians,' grabbed the reigns of power in our nation and our media. Like the wicked Pharisees before them, and the Constantinians thereafter, they are focused on an earthly victory, reward and dominion in the name of Christ while still encumbered with the wretched deformity of human sin-nature -- utterly blind to it. These people actually believe they have some "special deal" with the Lord, who won't hold them accountable for their actions (while simultaneously damning the rest of the world to eternal hell). Is this any less a threat to our society than radical Islam? Because it is embedded in "Christianity," I say it is far, far worse and far more dangerous. Scripture declares plainly, 'the righteousness of God cannot be achieved through the violence of men.'

These goobers are clearly of the ilk that haven't gotten past the mere 'milk' of the Gospel, un-weaned, pablum sucking spiritual infants with John 3:16 rattling around in their soft skulls and little else. And there's no excuse for it!

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. When will they HEAR Christ? You cannot have "Christ Centered Duty" and kill people. Period.

God help us!!!
Alton

Comment
To Greg (and all), 8-19-5

I just was given information on your group and web site (www.forceministries.com) from Jeff Rense' web site. WOW...I can hardly believe it!! I guess you haven't yet read and understood the famous and popular book about Jesus....The Bible. If you had, you would understand that he was almost exclusively A PACIFIST!! MILITARY SERVICE IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST....YOU'VE GOT TO BE JOKING....OR IF NOT, YOU'RE JUST CERTIFIABLY INSANE!! The world is already rapidly becoming more scary, without people like you trying to "share" or "impart" the message of Christ and "convert" new Christians with your AK-47's and tanks!! Please don't come to my neighborhood with your repugnant, perposterous, and nonsensical message!!

My Prayers are for you and your group, and all of your souls....
Phil.

Comment
Peter Dillion, 8-19-5

It has apparently never registered with these military-missionaries or whatever they want to claim themselves to be that from the moment Peter cut off the ear of the chief priests guard, and Jesus restored it, and the Lord told Peter, "All who live by the sword, shall die by the sword," that Christians never served or enlisted in the service of any military, nor did physical harm to other human beings, but rather sacrificed themselves... men, women and children, "loving not their lives (or this world) even unto death" in the service of Christ.

You cannot serve two masters. You cannot be an agent of death and destruction and serve the merciful, grace-filled Lord of Light who came to impart love, self-sacrifice and salvation to the world. You can't lay in the fox-hole and pick off a distant "enemy" with a rifle and be a Christian. It is IMPOSSIBLE. When Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," he did not mean those who kill.

Who do these guys think they are fooling? God? It was not until wicked pollutions entered the church that believers lost their first love, their devotion to self-sacrifice and then laid down their cross and took up swords and began to justify killing in God's name. Any Christian who has managed to justify murder, be it by war (corporate murder) or any other taking of a life, has driven the Holy Spirit from himself and made a pact with death and hell. The Bible tells us there will be great falling away from the faith in the last days, and this is just one aspect of it. God, have mercy on us sinners! Jesus said plainly, many shall fall away and be deceived.

Comment
LH, 8-20-5

Dear a-holes, please do yourselves a favor--READ the new testament, and when you find the part of Christ's teachings that endorses violence and military service, let me know. While you're at it, be on the lookout for any teachings he may have imparted that actually contradict your mission. You know, things like blessed are the peacemakers, he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, stuff like that.

Comment
Ned Holloway, 8-20-5

If these 'evangelicals' really feel the need to minister to the troops, that's fine -- but the website contains disturbing images of soldiers and a feeling of death, destruction and war. This is not the way of Christ. Their "christ centered duty" is to lay down their arms and feed, clothe and comfort their enemies... not kill them.
 
 

H U M O R Priorities contributing editor to   - Dale

As we age, our priorities change ......

The other day I came home and was greeted by my wife, dressed only in very sexy underwear and holding a couple of short velvet ropes.

"Tie me up," she purred, "and you can do anything you want."

So, I tied her up and went  fishing.
 
 

I N S I G H T 5 bucks a gallon for gas? Expert sees it in 2006 http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gas17.html contributing editor to   - Rodger

[We said last year it would be 3 bucks a gallon this year.  It's not there yet but it's not far from it and the year is not over.  Also we said it would not go back down.  Get used to it as a way of life.  I'm already seeing the effects of it in my business.  What kind of effect do you think it will have on every aspect of your life?  --  Rodger]

by Mark J. Konkol - Transportation Reporter

If you think all this flirting with $3-a-gallon gas is already a pain in the pocketbook, brace yourself.

Oil expert Craig Smith predicts gas prices will skyrocket next year, jumping to five bucks a gallon.

And if terrorists successfully strike a major Middle East oil field, Americans might end up paying $10 a gallon -- about $110 to fill a Ford Focus' 11-gallon tank.

Smith, a self-proclaimed geopolitical know-it-all hawking his new book Black Gold Stranglehold, says Americans -- tree-hugging politicians and car-addicted commuters alike -- should blame themselves for the coming spike in prices.

"Why are they charging higher prices for gas? Because people will pay it. Apparently, we're not changing our driving habits much," he said. "Blame this on ourselves. This country has not built a new refinery in 30 years, we stopped new oil exploration . . . and put a moratorium on offshore drilling."

Smith -- who last year predicted $3-a-gallon gas and $65-a-barrel crude oil prices this year -- says oil prices will jump to $80 a gallon by the end of 2006.

On Tuesday, the national average was $2.52 a gallon, according to AAA. And the price of gas topped $3 here last week.

If you don't believe the average cost of gas will double in 12 months, Smith points to places such as Hong Kong, Korea and France, where gas prices regularly top the $5 mark.

The solution here for high oil prices: "find it, drill it, refine it and burn it" domestically, Smith said, pointing to untapped crude reserves in Alaska, Colorado, Utah, off the California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.
 
 

I N S I G H T The CAFTA Loss - and Beyond http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven9.htm contributing editor to   - Rodger

[Okay, well over a year ago I told some of you to look out for the American Union.  Well they changed the name to Free Trade Areas of the Americas.  The Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) is the next shoe to fall and will be the final death nail in the coffin of the u.S.A.  If we allow this to happen, the u.S.A. will cease to exist and we will finally be assimilated into the "New World Order".  No rights.  No freedoms.  Just a human resource to be used and discarded by the beast.  Others and I have been shouting warning after warning from the top of the towers.  What are you going to do?  --  Rodger]

By Steven Yates - August 14, 2005

First thing last Thursday morning (July 29) I learned the axe had fallen: the House had passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) by a vote of 217-215, the slimmest margin ever for a trade accord, following a “15-minute” vote held open for an hour and not ending until past midnight—not ending, that is, until the pro-CAFTA forces got what they wanted.

Word gradually filtered out about deal-cutting and arm-twisting on the part of the Bushies. And tales of “irregularities” that probably ought to be investigated. How, for example, did Charles Taylor’s (R-NC) voting card get deactivated so that it would fail to register what he insists would have been a No vote, with no one catching the error until long after he’d left the Capitol building?

Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) was also a probable No to CAFTA. She had left the building shortly after 5 p.m. because of another commitment. How was it possible that she managed to drive sufficiently far that she couldn’t return to vote by midnight, when everyone knew by 8 p.m. the vote was going to happen that night? Three hours until 8 p.m. (in rush hour traffic) vs. four hours until midnight (after rush hour traffic)? Something is wrong. Do the math.

Robin Hayes (R-NC) had first voted No, then switched his vote to Yes in the closing minutes following a promise by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to protect textile jobs in his district. In Hayes’s account, Hastert told him, “We need this vote very badly. We have exhausted all our potential sources and we need your vote. In order for you to vote for us we will do whatever we need to do in your district for people to keep their jobs.” Hayes reported telling him he “needed new protections for his district’s textile producers and workers.” Hastert said he’d “do his best.”

Hastert denies that account. As reported in the Charlotte Observer, Hastert said, “I did have a discussion with Robin Hayes. But Robin Hayes ultimately talked to his textile people. They encouraged him to vote for the bill ultimately.” The Observer went on: Hayes’s constituents are “entitled to ask what the heck happened. Rep. Hayes, send us 800 words or so explaining exactly what benefits your district will get for your vote, and we’ll tell them.”

Hayes’s was, in fact, the vote that put CAFTA over the top. Had he voted No, the result would have been a 216-216 tie! Had just one of those two would-have-been No votes been recorded, CAFTA would have been defeated.

Twenty five Republicans, including of course the ever-reliable Ron Paul (R-TX), defied the Bush Regime and voted No.

Only 15 Democrats voted Yes. The rest voted No. Most voted No for the wrong reasons, but never mind that now.

I attended a meeting on CAFTA in Spartanburg, S.C., on Monday, July 25. Our Representative, Bob Inglis, had planned to meet with his constituents. Mostly, his constituents talked and he listened. While he listened, informed citizens of South Carolina’s 4th District presented three logically independent lines of criticism of CAFTA. Logically independent here means: any of the three, by itself, was sufficient for saying No to CAFTA. Mr. Inglis, who used that meeting to announce his decision to support CAFTA, had no response to any of them. I have yet to hear any backer of CAFTA respond to them. What you hear from the backers of CAFTA are technicalities about pockets and linings, and red herrings about China (as if something other than our trade policies and our government’s micromanagement of the economy weren’t responsible for industries going to a Communist dictatorship for cheap labor).

Here are the criticisms:

One. CAFTA was sold to Congress and to the public with the same arguments used to sell the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA went into effect, and a trade surplus with Mexico vanished almost overnight and became a huge trade deficit. Thousands of American manufacturing facilities have now closed. Millions of good-paying jobs have been lost, replaced by low-paying “services” jobs. The old jobs very likely will never return. Our trade deficit is now approaching $800 billion, as America’s middle class shrinks and we spiral down toward third world status.

Moreover, NAFTA was supposed to improve Mexico’s economy. Instead, the lack of decent-paying jobs in Mexico (plus the Bush Regime’s refusal to lift a finger to protect our Southern border) is one of the reasons thousands of illegal aliens enter this country every day. Arguably, NAFTA was a disaster for both countries.

CAFTA is just an expansion of NAFTA, as its supporters readily admit. Expect jobs to begin migrating to Central America soon.

For both an overview and many specifics of the economic suicide this country has embarked upon over the past twelve or so years since the super-elite agenda went into overdrive, I recommend maverick economist Paul Craig Roberts’s article archive. On second thought, suicide doesn’t employ the right metaphor. Murder comes closer, if you also read investigative journalist William Norman Grigg’s short but hard-hitting treatise America’s Engineered Decline.

Two. CAFTA is a direct threat to U.S. sovereignty—expanding the foreign entanglements created by NAFTA and our membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), through which we have already sacrificed some of our sovereignty.

CAFTA’s supporters have consistently brushed this argument off. I cannot believe they have so much as glanced at the document (which is online, after all). Many of us took time to study selected portions of CAFTA. Its Preamble, as has been pointed out numerous times by myself and others, clearly indicates that CAFTA is about more than trade.

Consider the very first provision: “Strengthen the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among their nations and promote regional economic integration” (emphasis mine). This is a serious red flag, simply because the idea of an economic system not subject to governmental oversight hasn’t been on the official radar screen in over 70 years. Regional economic integration means regional governmental integration. We are talking about the inevitable creation of a hemispheric megastate along the lines of the European Union (EU).

Thus the final provision: “Contribute to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas” (first emphasis mine; second, in original—see more about the Free Trade Area of the Americas below).

There it is, in black and white: the overt threat to U.S. sovereignty. There’s no “conspiracy theory” here. The architects of CAFTA were quite open about their intentions—for those who went to the trouble of actually reading the document.

Mexico’s President Vicente Fox has openly endorsed hemispheric integration. Here are Fox’s words to an internationalist confab in Madrid back in 2002: “Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes [such as] the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services, and persons.”

Not just trade, but open borders for a free movement of peoples, along with appropriate legal entanglements and protections, and bureaucratic oversight—penned and enforced by bureaucrats the American people did not elect.

We see right away why the Bush Regime has done nothing to stem the flow of illegal aliens across our Southern border despite the wishes of the majority of Americans.

If we examine various chapters of CAFTA, what do we find? Countless additional provisions for the prospective megastate’s bureaucracies. They have names like the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters (created by Chapter 6), an Environmental Affairs Council (created by Chapter 17, where Article 17.9 commits all CAFTA countries to Sustainable Development), a Labor Affairs Council (created by Chapter 16), a Financial Services Committee (created by Chapter 12), a Free Trade Commission (created by Chapter 19), and so on. In between are dozens of pages of regulations and calls for recognition of components of previous agreements including WTO and GATT 1994 mandates.

There are also sections under which foreign corporations (or, for that matter, foreign branches of American-based companies) could lodge complaints under CAFTA rules about “favorable treatment” given Americans by state and local American governments or American firms (Chapter 9). Nor have we mentioned cross-border trade-in-services provisions (Chapter 11), nor the loss of our independence to World Bank and UN tribunals created under CAFTA in various other chapters (Chapters 10, 20).

As we just noted, CAFTA incorporates Sustainable Development. Back to the Preamble: “Implement this Agreement in a manner consistent with environmental protection and conservation, promote sustainable development, and strengthen [the CAFTA nations’] cooperation on all environmental matters” (emphasis mine). [6 hr. Video on Sustainable Development]

How can anyone actually study CAFTA without concluding that the agreement is about managed trade, not free trade. More than that, how can anyone read CAFTA without realizing that the agreement is about control instead of trade???

Three. CAFTA is just plain unconstitutional.

First, let’s note how CAFTA (like its predecessor NAFTA) is called an agreement and not a treaty, because a treaty calls for two-thirds support in Congress. As a treaty, CAFTA would not have come close to passing. This is how backers of these trade deals circumvent Constitutional requirements.

Speaking of the latter, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 specifically charges Congress with the responsibility to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations …” Article VI, moreover, specifies that the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land …” Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to delegate or outsource its responsibility by means of international agreements to international bureaucracies not elected by the American people.

Strictly speaking, in that case, our government’s signing off on NAFTA was also unconstitutional, as are our entanglements with the World Trade Organization (WTO).

I know, I know—at this point someone will say to me, “But Yates, the Constitution is a ‘living, evolving document’ whose meaning changes with the pressures placed on it by changing times.” The problem here is with the results, which are that the Constitution does end up meaning whatever the Supreme Court’s latest majority, shifting with the winds of convention, says that it means. A “living Constitution” fails miserably at restraining the powers of government and protecting individual freedoms, including the freedom of property rights from, say, eminent domain abuses, as decisions such as Kelo abundantly testify. We might as well scrap the document. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

So what now?

First, it is important to realize what has been going on, because the truth is, CAFTA is minor league. CAFTA is just one step of a much larger process, the aim of which is to destroy this country. NAFTA was a slightly earlier stage of this process. Of NAFTA, Dr. Henry Kissinger, a longstanding member of the super-elite, once said, “It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere.” NAFTA, he added, “is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system” (emphasis mine). Dr. Kissinger is a member of the shadowy Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, whose goals have been to create the conditions for a socialist world government. Led by such bloodlines as Europe’s Rothschilds and America’s Rockefellers, this process has people behind it with very deep pockets!

The real fight now is to keep America from being destroyed by this globalist shadow government. The moment of truth is now very possibly just months away!

Until just over two years ago, there was no CAFTA. The super-elites convened in Miami, Fla., back in 1994, at the first Summit of the Americas. Out of view and with no reportage by the media, they instigated their plans for the now-infamous Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The ink on NAFTA’s thousands of pages was barely dry. They placed themselves on a ten-year timetable, beginning the following year. That made 2005 their target year for having the FTAA in place.

As time passed, the Internet developed. Information became increasingly decentralized. The super-elites could no longer control it. More and more people began to realize that you couldn’t always believe the priorities of the New York Times or the 6 o’clock news. A lot was simply not reported—especially if the six or so megaconglomerates that dominate the mainstream media (all of which have CFR members in controlling positions) don’t want the public to know about it.

Word leaked out. A sufficient number of patriotic Americans “unplugged,” and the FTAA began to incur grassroots opposition. National organizations such as Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA were formed.

Sometimes you can take two steps forward; other times you take one step back.

In 2003, the Bush Administration concocted CAFTA as an intermediate step. A smaller agreement, it involved just six nations, whereas the FTAA draws together 34—all of the nations of the Western hemisphere, in fact, except for Cuba.

As we noted above, CAFTA actually says this of itself: it is a stepping stone to the FTAA, which would create the largest megastate in the world, extending from north of the Arctic Circle to the southern tip of Argentina.

One thing is for sure: the struggle to stop the FTAA just got harder. Now that the super-elite has CAFTA, we can expect efforts in behalf of the FTAA to accelerate. The elites know that there are pockets of activity out here in the boonies—away from centers of wealth and power like New York City and Washington D.C., that is—where we are working just as feverishly to oppose them.

That is, there are people out here who want to continue to live in a United States of America and take it back to the Constitution—the real thing, that is, and not the “living document” of legal positivists. We truly believe that a Constitutional republic still holds out the best hope for containing that minority that craves power if we have learned U.S. history’s most important lesson: keep the international bankers on very tight leashes. The super-elite is essentially an international banking and financial cartel, after all, whose members learned early that if you want to control an entire society, control its finances. If you want to destroy it, destroy its people’s founding traditions to weaken their defenses. Dumb them down, then undermine their ability to feed themselves. Control the flow of resources, jobs, etc. Lure them into debt. Make them utterly dependent.

An early President, Andrew Jackson, once called international bankers “a den of vipers.”

If we do not stop the FTAA we will live under a corporate-socialist Western Hemispheric Union modeled on the European Union, the final goal of the globalists being the union of those two. America as we know it will have ceased to exist. There will not even be lip service to Constitutionally limited government. Nor will there be meaningful private property rights or genuine free trade except perhaps for trivial purchases (CDs, paperback novels, movies, other sources of entertainment). Most likely, if such a system ever comes to pass every individual will be given a government ID card and be unable to buy a house, lease an apartment, open a bank account, accept a job or start a business without it.

In accordance with Sustainable Development requirements, we will find our living arrangements, employment, energy-use and travel constrained by government oversight; nor will we be able to take the vitamins or dietary supplements of our choice. (There are also provisions in CAFTA incorporating the rules of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations; under these rules basic vitamins require a doctor’s prescription.) Kiss your vitamins goodbye; kiss control over your health goodbye!

There is really no time to work through an alternative party to the Demopublicans, as desirable as that would be. But what we can do is highlight the extreme narrowness of the vote that put CAFTA over the top, the underhandedness of its supporters going all the way into the Bush Regime, their refusal or inability to answer obvious objections to CAFTA—and letting our Senators and Representatives who sold us out by voting for CAFTA know that their betrayal of this nation will be dealt with at the next election. And we must use the above “irregularities” and obvious contentiousness surrounding the CAFTA vote as itself a reason for them not to vote for the FTAA.

That is just the start. This is not about mere “reasons.” We are dealing with people who have proven they cannot be reasoned with. The campaign against the FTAA should involve Stop the FTAA signs on front lawns and both in and on automobiles. Anti-FTAA fliers should be made available everywhere. A number of states, to their credit, have already passed anti-FTAA measures. Arizona has done so. So has Utah. There have been stirrings of opposition to the FTAA in other states including Wisconsin, Oregon, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Montana. More should follow. Every state government in the Union ought to take this up. All of us should begin writing letters to our representatives in state government and to our state governors, educating them about the FTAA (many, I predict, will not have heard of it) and urging them to oppose it publicly.

Stopping the FTAA may well involve marches in front of the local offices of those who voted for CAFTA. We could find ourselves having to engage in civil disobedience, standing on our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and to peaceful assembly when told by law enforcement to “disperse” or “move on.” Peaceful is emphasized in the last sentence because obviously no one can lose his temper or say or do anything an elected official can interpret as a personal threat! Irresponsible actions by one group of hotheads could be used by those in power as grounds for cracking down on all dissent!

It is important to remember that this nation’s sovereignty and independence are at stake here!

Of course, if jobs begin going to Central America as a consequence of CAFTA, this won’t be comfortable for those victimized but it will help our cause in stopping the FTAA and putting us on a path reversing the disastrous course of recent years.

To those who say that such a strategy is futile, I invite you to write up and submit your workable alternative. I believe we just saw what lies ahead if we do not stop the FTAA.
 
 

I N S I G H T Copperheads Gather Early in Arkansas http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Science/wireStory?id=1041794 contributing editor to   - Dan

[While this is a report from Arkansas, if the creatures of the wild are seeking refuge early, then what do they know?]

Copperheads Move to Hibernation Sites Earlier Than Usual in Ark.; One Man's Yard Overrun
By ANNIE BERGMAN - Associated Press Writer

LITTLE ROCK Aug 16, 2005 — It happens every year: large numbers of copperheads gather and move in unison to dens for hibernation. But it happens in October, not July or August. Now the common event has become an uncommon and inexplicable one.

"I know for a fact that all these snakes didn't just wake up one day and do this," said Chuck Miller, whose Marion County yard has been overrun with the pitvipers. "Something's making them do it. They know something we don't know. There's got to be something more to this."

Nearly 100 of the snakes are using a cedar tree as a sort of meeting place, and neither Miller, an outdoorsman and former snake owner, nor scientists who have traveled to the rural north central Arkansas site to study the phenomenon, know why.

Stanley Trauth, a zoology professor at Arkansas State University, said the snakes normally gather to move to hibernation sites in the fall. Trauth has traveled to Miller's property to conduct research on the snakes' behavior.

"With this hot weather we didn't anticipate such a grand movement of so many snakes. In the fall they aggregate in fairly large numbers, so it's quite an unusual event," Trauth said in a telephone interview Monday.

Miller agrees. "If it were October, no one would know about it. It wouldn't be that strange," he said.

When the snakes first started showing up three weeks ago, Miller said he was a little concerned that no one would believe how many were visiting the cedar tree, so he began collecting the reptiles. He saw 20 the first night, he said.

One of his friends contacted Trauth and the research began.

Trauth and one of his graduate students traveled to Miller's property and embedded a radio transmitter in one of the snakes for tracking purposes. Other snakes also had tags clipped to their scales.

Miller said seven of nine tagged snakes were taken a quarter-mile away from the tree and released, but have since returned to the tree and been recaptured.

Trauth said the copperheads gather at the tree to leave their scent. By rubbing the tree, other copperheads know that it is a marker on the way to a den site, he said.
 
 

H U M O R New Crop of Bumper Stickers for 2005 contributing editor to   - Dan

I am from the gubment, & am here to help you - NOT Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_2005.cfm contributing editor to   - Rodger

[From the land of the free and the home of the brave.  You shall not get together and talk among yourselves at any time.  Be it work hours or off hours.

Free or slave?  --  Rodger]

NLRB Green Lights Ban on Off-Duty Fraternizing Among Co-Workers

It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip.  Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.

So how did the NLRB decide to weaken fundamental workplace protections?  Security firm Guardsmark instituted a rule directing employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees."  In September 2003, the Service Employees International Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against Guardsmark, claiming that the company's work rules inhibited its employees' Section 7 rights.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the right to "self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations…and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..."  While the law allows employers to ban association among co-workers during work hours, Guardsmark's rule was broader in that it applied to the off-duty association of co-workers.

On June 7, 2005, the Board ruled 2 to 1 that Guardsmark's fraternization rule was lawful.1  The Board majority argued that workers would likely interpret the fraternization rule as merely a ban on dating, and not a prohibition of the association among co-workers protected by Section 7.  But the dissenting member of the Board pointed out that since the rule already mentions dating, workers would understand fraternization to mean something else.  She noted, "the primary meaning of the term 'fraternize…[is] to associate in a brotherly manner'…and that kind of association is the essence of workplace solidarity."

Growing Workforce, Shrinking Protection

Number of U.S. workers for every employee of the NLRB:
In 1980: 30,1762
In 2003: 69,4073

While there are reasons for employers to ban dating among co-workers (namely to prevent sexual harassment), prohibiting off-duty fraternization is something quite different.  Such a ban inevitably chills collective action of any sort—be it on a purely social basis or related to employees discussing whether to form a union or not.

Since employers are not obligated to inform employees of their legally-protected right to associate with their co-workers, how can we expect any employee to assume that a rule banning fraternization doesn't interfere with these rights?  And why would someone risk violating a no-fraternization rule, given that most employees work 'at will'—meaning they can be fired for no reason?

America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with.  But the NLRB gives employers the green light to invade our privacy and chip away at our most basic rights in the workplace.

Additional Resources

1. Sign-up to receive an alert via email when the next monthly edition of Workers' Rights Watch: Eye on the NLRB is published.

2. Read past editions of Workers' Rights Watch: Eye on the NLRB.
3. If you know of a case that we should highlight in a future edition of Workers’ Rights Watch: Eye on the NLRB, please let us know.  Send these stories, along with your contact information, case details and related information to nlrbstories@americanrightsatwork.org.

Endnotes

1. Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB No. 97 (2005).
2. Human Rights Watch, "Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States Under International Human Rights Standards" (2000).
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employees on non-farm payrolls by major industry sector, 1955 to date."
 
 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain** Who's Behind the Coming War With Iran?  http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=6888 contributing editor to   - Rodger

[What war with Iran you say?  Well it's coming folks.  Fire up CNN or FoxNews.  It doesn't matter which one you watch.  They'll all show and tell you the same thing.  Get out those flags.  Or better yet buy some new ones.  China has made plenty and will make more if we need them.  Pop some popcorn.  Only the imported kind of course.  Only the best for these kind of events and probably the only kind you'll find anyway.  Invite the friends over to watch the good ol' USA kick some butt.  The draft boards are set up and staffed across the country so you can be one of the proud parents who sacrifice their sons or daughters to the war mongering of "born again Christian" George W. Bush and his fellow believers.  Just like the 10,000 plus parents who have done the same in Iraq.  Remember Dubbua did say "no child left behind."

Makes you proud to be an America doesn't it.  --  Rodger]

by Scott Horton - August 5, 2005

Writing in The American Conservative's Aug. 1 issue, former military intelligence and CIA counterterrorism officer Philip Giraldi, now a partner in Cannistraro Associates, says that the vice president (who, according to the U.S. Constitution, has no authority but to break a tie vote in the U.S. Senate up to and until the day the president keels over or is removed from office) has instructed the Air Force to begin preparing plans for a full-scale air war against Iran's "suspected" nuclear weapons sites using the excuse of the next terrorist attack. Giraldi's piece is short enough to cite here in its entirety:

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Wow, I guess the neocons took it pretty hard when they found out that Chalabi had played them with all his pro-Israel promises, and had in fact been working for Iran all along. It turns out the mullahs wanted Saddam gone as bad as Bush, Sharon, or bin Laden.

I wanted to know more, and since the reaction of the mass media was deafening silence, I decided to interview Giraldi myself [stream] [download mp3]. (Since then, one reporter asked White House spokesman Scott McClellan about it. He had no comment. There was no follow-up.)

As transcribed by Justin Raimondo earlier in the week, Giraldi confirmed to me that former(?) fascist secret warrior and neoconservative writer Michael Ledeen and his CIA buddies were the origin of the forged Niger uranium documents used by the administration to fool Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq. In answer to my question, "Who forged the Niger documents?" Giraldi said, "[A] couple of former CIA officers who are familiar with that part of the world who are associated with a certain well-known neoconservative who has close connections with Italy."

I said that must be Ledeen, member of the Italian fascist P-2 lodge (I said P-3 in the interview, d'oh!).

Giraldi said, "Mm, hmm."

He added that the still unnamed ex-CIA men "also had some equity interests, shall we say, with the operation. … A lot of these people are in consulting positions, and they get various, shall we say, emoluments in overseas accounts, and that kind of thing."

It will be interesting to see how long Ledeen and his co-conspirators in and out of the executive branch spend locked in prison. Or is it a crime to fabricate lies to justify a premeditated campaign of mass murder?

In any case, Philip Giraldi seems quite concerned that Cheney and the neocons are pushing for the design of war plans for their next target, Iran, using the excuse of another terrorist attack. These, of course, were the same men who used 9/11 as their excuse to attack Iraq. Giraldi noted the implausibility of Iran working with al-Qaeda, as they have a clear antipathy toward each other. Iran is run by conservative Shi'ite mullahs, while bin Laden and his followers are radicalSalafistSunnis. Further, why would Iran strike at the U.S. with terrorism when they have been doing everything possible to avoid a war that would devastate their country? Yet the U.S. government is following the same script as with Iraq: this Axis of Evil member has ties to terrorism and a nuclear weapons program, the UN won't act, so we have to at least bomb the hell out of them from the air, if not invade and give them democracy.

Also, once again, there is a convergence of interests between those who plan long-term energy strategy and those whose primary objective is protecting Israel. Unfortunately, the Likud First wings of the Republican party think it's the burden of Americans to confront Iran over their funding of Hezbollah, even though Hezbollah has never attacked America. Giraldi notes that the neoconservatives have made no secret of the fact that Iran is next on the hit list, and that they want a full-scale clash of civilizations. An unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran by the U.S., or by Israel itself, as Dick Cheney suggested on Inauguration Day, is a sure way to guarantee one.

Let us not forget how cooperative the Israelis were in creating excuses for invading Iraq. Julian Borger, writing in the Guardian, has said that Ariel Sharon had the same problem with Mossad that Dick Cheney had with the CIA: they'd lie a little but not enough. To solve this problem, he created an Office of Special Plans in Israel to help the boys in our Pentagon's "Gestapo office" get the job done right. In the interview with CIA retiree Giraldi, he offered that this story had been relayed to him separately from the Borger piece, presumably from someone who knew it firsthand. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski's escorting of Israeli generals to Douglas Feith's office at the Pentagon would seem to further corroborate this claim. An Iran specialist from Feith's office by the name of Larry Franklin has been indicted [.pdf] for passing secret Iran-policy papers to Israel. Two of his co-conspirators, Steve Rosen and Keith Weismann at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee have now also been indicted [.pdf] and may join him in prison.

But back to Iran. Giraldi confirmed information I had heard about Air Force Intelligence currently in Qatar picking targets. He added that the special forces were also already in Iran hunting for "suspected sites."

Former Marine and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote an article last April saying that Air Force officers had told him that they were working on plans for war against Iran that were to be ready by June of this year. When I asked Giraldi about this he said these were different "tactical" plans as opposed to the ones being drawn up by the Strategic Air Command that were leaked to him. Ritter has also written that the plans he was briefed on have already been put into motion, that the invasion will come from U.S. bases in Azerbaijan, that the U.S. is already flying drones in Iranian airspace, and that the Marxist terrorist cult, Mujahedin e-Khalq, is committing terror bombings against civilians in Iran on U.S. orders. He writes

"Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

"As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream."

Do they get al-Jazeera in Persia? It's hard to believe they elected the hardliner.

We face the very real possibility that individuals in charge of the government actually intend to launch a major air war on "hundreds of possible sites" inside Iran, even, according to Giraldi, to use tactical nuclear weapons. A land invasion is – or at least ought to be – out of the question. Iran is four times the size and has three times the population of Iraq, where U.S. forces have had plenty of trouble despite the majority Shia, for the most part, not even fighting. Demographics suggest Iran's population is heavy on fighting-age males. Most of the country is mountainous. To invade from Iraq can't be done, as the Shia would finally be unleashed against U.S. forces, who would then have to fight from both front and rear. A general Shia uprising in Iraq would be a likely result of bombing Iran, with or without ground troops. Land invasion would definitely require the mass enslavement known as conscription, and the soccer moms won't like that – fighting is for poor people.

The aforementioned felon Michael Ledeen and his neoconservative friends have a theory that if the U.S. bombs untold thousands of Iranians to death, the rest, seeing their government's weakness, will rise up, regime-change the government and install an America-friendly, nuclear-free puppet dictator in their place.

Reasonable people, at this point in the article, must be thinking this is crazy. And it is. There are many reasons why invading Iran is unwise. For starters, Iran has never attacked America. That ought to be the end of it, but let's go ahead and add that "experts" have come out and said what Antiwar.com's Gordon Prather has been sayingallalong: Iran is 10 years away from being able to make their own nuclear weapons – if they were to begin trying, which they haven't. The only exception to this is the possibility that they have obtained all the necessary ingredients, already prepared, from the black market. If they scored plutonium, Prather tells me, this would necessitate the construction of much more complicated weapons than a "gun"-type uranium fission bomb. The state may say it's so, but for some reason, I don't believe them. In any case, Iran still wouldn't be able to deliver a nuke to North America. According to Giraldi (and to those who still use common sense), the only incentive Iran has to make nukes is its own defense from aggressors – namely, us.

Innocent people would be killed – many of them. The Iraqi Shia majority, who have been relatively cooperative with our unprovoked invasion and occupation of that country, would undoubtedly turn on the U.S. soldiers there. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari recently went to Iran to lay a wreath at the grave of his hero, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who protected the SCIRI and the Da'wa Party from Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. (This failure on the part of the U.S., having basically handed Iraq over to Iran, may be another reason for the hawks to push for war. Maybe they could break them back up before anyone at CNN notices?)

Think of Iran as a fancy Western word for Persia, its coastline comprising one side of the Persian Gulf. Access to Saudi oil and the Arabian Sea could be easily halted, which would destroy the world economy, and quickly.

If the U.S. were to bomb the Bushehr reactor, not only would radioactive particles blast into the air to fall back down to earth and coat the local environment (think dirty bomb), but numerous Russians would also undoubtedly be killed. How might the U.S. react if the Russians were to bomb a reactor full of Americans in, say, India?

According to Newsweek's article from last September, "War Gaming the Mullahs":

"Newsweek has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, 'The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.'"

Is it realistic to think, as Giraldi said, that neoconservatives really believe their own lies about Western values being embraced throughout the Middle East by our invasion of Iraq? Paul Craig Roberts has suggested that spreading further destruction is their means if not their end. As Justin Raimondo and Juan Cole have pointed out, we have – conveniently enough for Likudniks – set up the makings of a perfect storm between the Shia in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and the Sunnis in Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

The Israelis seem to be doing their part. As Seymour Hersh reported in a June 2004 New Yorker article entitled "Plan B: As June 30th Approaches, Israel Looks to the Kurds," for which Giraldi was a source, the Israelis, apparently having decided the Iraq war was a total debacle only a month or so after Bush announced "mission accomplished," immediately moved to send in intelligence agents to start buying up Kurds. Giraldi told me he's heard reports that up to 800 Israeli agents are combing Iraq. The story is that our soldiers train together. (Remember the story about Israelis at Abu Ghraib?) According to Giraldi, however, their true purpose is to sow instability and pressure for Kurdish autonomy. This is another looming fault line in the brewing intra-Muslim conflict.

It seems that a lot of what we are learning about this war is coming from those CIA retirees who fled during the neocons' great purge of '04. Although I'm not typically a CIA fan, my favorite kind of government employee, as I've written before, is the kind who rats on current or former bosses. The steady flow of quality information to us regular folks from insider enemies of the former Trotskyite set in the Department of Defense and the vice president's office has been incredibly damaging to the administration and their policy. The CIA refugees can't stand to see their former covert operations roles taken over by soldiers, and they are having their revenge. Should it continue, the pressure might just be able to stop these crazies from expanding the conflict.

We must be careful not to give Bush and his team any more reason for war. Even bashing them could backfire on us. If it is generally agreed this early in the second term that George W. Bush is the worst president since Richard Nixon, or even since Franklin D. Roosevelt, and that he is destined to sit as a lame-duck loser for the next three and a half years, then he may see only one chance left to save his legacy: nuking Iran.

To the reporters who spend desperate, sleepless nights wondering how they could have been such suckers, so miserably and with such undying credulity failing to uncover the lies that led to the last bloody war: an opportunity for redemption now awaits.
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid* For a price, would you let car insurer along for the ride? http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2005-08-03-car-monitoring_x.htm contributing editor to   - Rodger

The entire technology industry is about to go down the toilet as a bursting real estate bubble crushes the world economy.

But that's OK, because I just found out how much I can save on my car insurance ...

Couldn't resist.

Actually, this is more about how technology is going to change the whole idea of car insurance — and how most of us eventually will let insurance companies monitor every move we make in our cars.

We'll do it for the same reason we happily use those little grocery store discount cards, which let the grocery store companies monitor every item we buy.

That reason is money. Give us a price cut, and we'll give up some privacy. As long as it seems like a fair shake, we're usually on it like seagulls after a dropped Cheeto.

Mass car monitoring is still years away. But it's been one year since the launch of two key tests — one in Minnesota and one in the U.K. — that use technology to track aspects of driving. Based on results of the monitoring, drivers can get discounts on their policies. Both tests are going well enough that they're now being expanded.

And here's an interesting twist: The monitoring seems to be getting people to drive more safely — not because they're afraid of repercussions, but because they're motivated to get bigger discounts. So instead of red light cams and state troopers with radar guns, maybe the way to get people to obey the rules of the road is to pay them to do it.

Big insurer Progressive launched its trial, dubbed TripSense, in Minnesota last August. Customers who sign up are mailed a device the size of a Tic Tac box with instructions on how to plug it into the electronics under the steering column. The gadget tracks only two things: speed, and the day and time a car is being driven.

Customers know upfront what behavior brings discounts. For instance, the less the car's speed is above 75 mph — the top speed limit in Minnesota is 70 — the bigger the rate cut. The discount also is bigger if you don't drive at the most dangerous times, such as right after the bars close on a Saturday night.

Every few months, each customer unplugs the device and uses a USB cord to hook it into a PC and download the information. As a hedge against fears about Big Brother, Progressive allows the customer to see the info and decide whether to send it in. If you've been driving like Batman during a chase scene, you'd get no discount anyway — so hit delete and just pay the standard amount.

About 4,800 Minnesotans are using TripSense. Their average discount is about 12%. Progressive is starting to roll out the test nationwide, hoping to get up to 15,000 participants.

"We're still in research mode," says Progressive executive Dave Huber. In focus groups, the company is finding out some interesting stuff. "Participants are more aware of their own driving," Huber says. "They're certainly more aware of their speed. To a person, they say that when they hit 75, the foot comes off the accelerator."

However, people seem to have less ability to alter when or how much they drive. Like Tracey Cochran of Rochester, Minn., a night-shift lab technician at the Mayo Clinic, who talked with me about trying TripSense. He drives home from work at the riskiest times, so he rarely gets a discount. "I learned I drive well — it's just at the wrong time of day," he says.

When I ask Cochran if he has fears about his privacy, he says, "No, not really."

The test in the U.K., though, pushes the concept of privacy to a whole different level. Using technology developed by Progressive and IBM, British insurer Norwich Union has been testing a program called Pay As You Drive.

The device includes global positioning system (GPS) technology, plus wireless capabilities so the device can constantly send your driving data directly back to Norwich Union. Users don't get to see their info first and decide to send it in.

Norwich Union's system not only monitors when and how fast you drive, it also sees WHERE you drive. If you tend to regularly park behind an adult book store in a dangerous neighborhood, Norwich Union will know. Presumably, the worst consequence is you won't get much of a discount — and such information would never be subpoenaed for, say, a divorce hearing.

Norwich Union recently started testing a way to offer this technology to parents of teenage drivers, who typically have car insurance premiums that look like the budget for a NASA mission.

If the teen has his or her own car, Norwich Union can use its device to charge for insurance based on usage. Drive safely in the daytime and pay about 10 cents per mile. Drive after 11 p.m. and pay about $2 a mile.

A lot of Americans might say they're aghast at Norwich Union's monitoring. But what if you're a very safe driver and you feel that — because actuaries throw you into a pool with all the lane-shifting, speeding, road-raging dregs of humanity — you unfairly pay for others' recklessness?

Would you accept a monitor in trade for a much lower bill? Wouldn't you feel better knowing that the guy who cut you off going 90 mph will have to fork over a lot more cash for the privilege?

What if monitoring coaxes millions of people to behave better on the roads, making everyone safer and ultimately bringing down all insurance costs — and making it less likely that your kid is going to die in a highway pileup?

It seems unlikely that any U.S. lawmaker would ever dare force car monitoring on us, but a decade from now, we might find ourselves buying into it, one person at a time.

Then, like those grocery cards, suddenly car monitors could seem as common and acceptable as house keys.

By the way, did you know that in Finland, taxis have tiny video cameras that monitor the passenger compartment? But we won't even go there. At least not yet.

Kevin Maney has covered technology for USA TODAY since 1985. His column appears Wednesdays. Click here for an index of Technology columns. E-mail him at: kmaney@usatoday.com.
 
 

H U M O R Worms contributing editor to   - Dan

A minister decided that a visual demonstration would add emphasis to his Sunday sermon. Four worms were placed into four separate jars. The first worm was put into a container of alcohol. The second worm was put into a container of cigarette smoke. The third worm was put into a container of chocolate syrup. The fourth worm was put into a container of good clean soil.

At the conclusion of the sermon, the Minister reported the following results:

The first worm in alcohol - Dead.

The second worm in cigarette smoke - Dead.
 

Third worm in chocolate syrup - Dead. Fourth worm in good clean soil - Alive. So the Minister asked the congregation - What can you learn from this demonstration? A little old woman in the back quickly raised her hand and said, "As long as you drink, smoke and eat chocolate, you won't have worms!" Don't you just love little old ladies????

 

The Flat Earth Report Are Half of All Americans Mentally Ill? Monday, August 15, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165646,00.html

[As   has written in the following issues -
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200406/200406index.html#23
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200410/200410index.html#27
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200411/200411index.html#18
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200501/issue.html#10
http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200505/issue.html#04
Mental Illness will one day be treated as a crime, but that will only be a ruse to control and/or restrain people.  Imagine you are attending seemingly public meeting, and ask some direct and on-point questions, which the panel can not answer, or do not want to answer.  If you persist in trying to get them to answer, then you could be physically removed and restrained as being mentally deranged, and if you do not cooperate you will be arrested for disrupting the peace or failure to comply with a cop or interfering with a police agent.  Wait, you already can have this happen to you.  Except that now the impetus for your detention can now be your mental state.  Many have been poo-pooing the truth of the concept of whether the masses will be subjected to testing for mental health and processing according to the results.  --  Tribble]

LOS ANGELES — A new study by Harvard University and the National Institute of Mental Health (search) claims that 46 percent of all Americans will, at some point in their lives, develop a mental disorder.

But this new statistic has experts arguing over exactly what constitutes a true mental illness.

According to experts, severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia, dementia and manic depression are relatively uncommon. But the updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (search), or DSM — the standard survey for mental illness — lists conditions like adjustment disorder, passive-aggressive disorder and female sexual arousal disorder as mental illness, reflecting what are claimed to be advances in the mental health profession.

Critics say that's crazy, and that it won't be long before all human quirks and flaws are classified as mental disorders.

"When you say we're going to provide mental health treatment to everyone, then the severely mentally ill usually get the lowest priority," said Dr. Richard Lamb (search), professor of Psychiatry at the University of Southern California.

Others say the DSM should be considered the mental health bible, because if it says that a person is mentally ill, then that person can get the treatment they need — and insurance companies will foot the bill.

"We would never suggest to somebody with one type of cancer that because their type of cancer is not necessarily as fatal as somebody else's that they should withhold treatment so someone else can get it," said Cynthia Focarelli of the National Mental Health Association (search).

The next edition of the DSM will not come out until 2010. The American Psychiatric Association (search) is considering making changes to refine the subclasses of various mental illnesses.
 
 

H U M O R Riding Lawn Mower contributing editor to   - Dan

I N S I G H T Letter to Dad contributing editor to   - Dan and J&B

A father passing by his son's bedroom was astonished to see the bed was nicely made and everything was picked up.  Then he saw an envelope propped up prominently on the pillow. It was addressed, "Dear Dad"  With the worst premonition, he opened the envelope and read the letter with trembling hands:

Dear Dad,

It is with great regret and sorrow that I'm writing you. I had to elope with my new girlfriend because I wanted to avoid a scene with Mom and you.   I've been finding real passion with Joan and she is so nice. I knew you would not approve of her because of all her piercing, tattoos, her tight Motorcycle clothes and because she is so much older than I am.

But it's not only the passion, Dad, she's pregnant.  Joan said that we will be very happy.  She owns a trailer in the woods and has a stack of firewood for the whole winter. We share a dream of having many more children.  Joan has opened my eyes to the fact that marijuana doesn't really hurt anyone.  We'll be growing it for us and  trading it with the other people in the commune for all the cocaine and ecstasy we want.  In the meantime, we'll pray that science will find a cure for AIDS so Joan can get better;  she sure deserves it!!

Don't worry Dad, I'm 15 years old now and I know how to take care of myself.  Someday I'm sure we'll be back to visit so you can get to know your grandchildren.

Your Loving Son,

P.S. Dad, none of the above is true.  I'm over at Tommy's house.  I just wanted to remind you that there are worse things in life than the report card that's in my center desk drawer.  I love you!

Call when it is safe for me to come home.
 
 

I am from the gubment, & am here to help you - NOT "My son joined the Army to protect America, NOT Israel." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460787/posts http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/ http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/851600.php http://judicial-inc.biz/cindy_sheehan_Israel.htm contributing editor to   - Dan

[If Miss Sheehan's understanding about our Middle East involvment is correct, and many people think as she does, then her complaints are VALID.  But, of course that means you would have to accept her position to empathize with her plight.  --  Tribble]

Who Is Cindy Sheehan? She is the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq, and wants answers as to why her son died. Spc. Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Baghdad on April 4, 2004, five days after he arrived in Iraq. An Eagle Scout, who trained as a Humvee mechanic, he volunteered to help bring in soldiers wounded in an ambush. He died after his convoy came under attack. Cindy Sheehan blames the Neo-Cons and Israel for the Iraq conflict. Bush and the news media laughed at her, until it came out that she said that Marines are dying for Israel, then everyone panicked.

Here Is Her Statement

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry?

Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.

Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.

We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.

You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism.....
http://judicial-inc.biz/cindy_sheehan_Israel.htm
 
 

I am from the gubment, & am here to help you - NOT http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050807-09573600-bc-saudi-funds.xml Saudis to retrieve $360 billion abroad contributing editor to   - Rodger

[The Saudis are cashing in their marker.  Oil has hit $67 a barrel and shows no sign of slowing.  Iran announced they would start taking the Euro for oil instead of the Dollar.  The same thing Saddam announced and look what happened.  The housing bubble is poised to burst.  When do you think the dominoes will start falling?  --  Rodger]

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Aug. 7 (UPI) -- Saudi Arabia said Sunday it was working to bring back to the kingdom a total of $360 billion invested abroad in the last 18 months.

Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told reporters the government was working on returning these "national assets" back to the oil-rich Arab country and to attract foreign investments in Saudi Arabia.

He said the kingdom has "established qualified institutions for that purpose," but did not elaborate.

The minister added that the "smooth way" in which power was handed over to new King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz after King Fahd's death last week meant a continuation of stability.

"We hope these measures taken on the economic front will return the Saudi funds," Prince Saud said.
 
 

I am from the gubment, & am here to help you - NOT The Bush Gang - Get The Internet! http://www.rense.com/general67/get.htm contributing editor to   - Rodger

[It's just a matter of time before the free flow of truth is gone.  probably for good.  The united states government is in control of the primary internet servers and can control it or shut it down at will.  IMHO  --  Rodger]

By Ted Lang, 8-8-5

It was only a few weeks back when matters progressed from horrific to even more horrific for the Bush Gang. The Valerie Plame thing was boiling over into the Karl Rove mess, Bush's popularity was tanking, and the American people were increasingly making their displeasure known over the hideous Bush warmongering and massacres in Iraq. Along with that, increasing add-ons to the Downing Street Memo were bringing into focus the Bush/Blair conspiracy to annex the Middle East and its oil by means of their false ally, Israel.

So back then, I offered a warning: Something has to happen! And it did! And just yesterday, I pounded out this piece. I hadn't even hit the send button, and I saw the Washington Post's subject headline in their e-mail issue of August 7th: "Terrorists Turn to the Web as Base of Operations." That was followed on by British mass murderer and terrorist Tony Blair, as reported on Alex Jones' Prison Planet, in an article entitled: "Tony Blair's terrorism clampdown: more rules needed to control extreme websites." The latter article was credited to a website calling itself Public Technology.

Pardon the redundancy, but in my prior effort, I revealed my vision as regards the Bush/Blair mass murder conspiracy as having three remaining objectives needed to deliver mankind over to the total control by the international banking Illuminati's New World Order:

1. Hate crimes legislation;
2. Abolition of the Internet;
3. A nuclear 9-11 on American soil.

How will these be accomplished? How are any unconscionable, draconian, life-stifling and freedom-destroying rules put in place by the State? By first preparing the populace via that counter culture and society-destroying concept readily described as "political correctness," which is heavily promulgated by the Zionist mainstream, establishment, corporate media. Once again, the MSM will be employed to deploy PC "logic" and self-hating "sacrifice" for the greater good: the New World Order!

Here's how that denomination of the Illuminati's propaganda machine, the Bilderberg-controlled Washington Post, approaches their assignment to accomplish item number 2 in hammering out the "Project for the New American Century": "In the snow-draped mountains near Jalalabad in November 2001, as the Taliban collapsed and al Qaeda lost its Afghan sanctuary, Osama bin Laden biographer Hamid Mir watched 'every second al Qaeda member carrying a laptop computer along with a Kalashnikov' as they prepared to scatter into hiding and exile. On the screens were photographs of Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta."

Dramatic no? Scary, huh? Every other al Qaeda member had his laptop switched on, and while marching to wherever he was going, he was staring at the visage of Mohamed Atta. These are indeed dangerous people. But wait - there's more!

Post staff writers Stephen Coll and Susan B. Glasser continue their Sunday, August 7th article, writing: "Nearly four years later, al Qaeda has become the first guerrilla movement in history to migrate from physical space to cyberspace. With laptops and DVDs, in secret hideouts and at neighborhood Internet cafes, young code-writing jihadists have sought to replicate the training, communication, planning and preaching facilities they lost in Afghanistan with countless new locations on the Internet." Wow - "countless new locations," huh?

Questions: What was the source of observing that every other al Qaeda freedom fighter was watching the Mohamed Atta Show? Only one source? Hmmmmm. Is that source highly reliable? And another: has the comment, "first guerilla movement in history to migrate from physical space to cyberspace" been verified factually, or is this "fact" merely creative rhetoric?

Coll and Glasser go on: "Al Qaeda suicide bombers and ambush units in Iraq routinely depend on the Web for training and tactical support, relying on the Internet's anonymity and flexibility to operate with near impunity in cyberspace. In Qatar, Egypt and Europe, cells affiliated with al Qaeda that have recently carried out or seriously planned bombings have relied heavily on the Internet."

Apparently, the Washington Post is trying to convince its readers that if the Internet can somehow be brought under control, or removed entirely, al Qaeda and all others who hate "our wealth and freedom" will simply be made to evaporate into thin air. And let's not forget as well, without the unmonitored and uncontrolled Internet, embarrassments such as the non-reporting and spiking of such events and occurrences as the Downing Street Memo, the Valerie Plame/Air Force One memo, the White House pedophile ring, the Karl Rove mess, and the Congressman James Senselessbrenner's ramming through of the Bill of Rights-destroying USA PATRIOT Act, would all never have seen the light of day. We would have only professional journalistic information sources in the MSM!

Again, more anti-American propaganda from Coll and Glasser: "Such cases have led Western intelligence agencies and outside terrorism specialists to conclude that the 'global jihad movement,' sometimes led by al Qaeda fugitives but increasingly made up of diverse 'groups and ad hoc cells,' has become a 'Web-directed' phenomenon, as a presentation for U.S. government terrorism analysts by longtime State Department expert Dennis Pluchinsky put it. Hampered by the nature of the Internet itself, the government has proven ineffective at blocking or even hindering significantly this vast online presence."

Oh, there is indeed a "vast online presence," just as there is evidence now of the reality of "a vast right-wing conspiracy" of Rove, Cheney, Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld. But that's not what the Post and the fascists in American government are worried about. They're worried about websites like the one you're reading right now - websites that go wherever the truth is to be found, even through that wicked, evil and dangerous forest identified as "anti-Semitism." But the latter will be taken care of by item No. 1 in the aforementioned master plan.

And oh yeah, speaking of "anti-Semitism," let's check out some drivers for this article. After laundry-listing an inventory of extremely dangerous WMDs, training operations, and library-categorized information available to the whole world that should also be easily traceable by an America-friendly CIA, if such a dimension of the latter even exists, here's a revelation further down in the article: "The number of active jihadist-related Web sites has metastasized since Sept. 11, 2001.

When Gabriel Weimann, a professor at the University of Haifa in Israel, began tracking terrorist-related Web sites eight years ago, he found 12; today, he tracks more than 4,500. Hundreds of them celebrate al Qaeda or its ideas, he said. 'They are all linked indirectly through association of belief, belonging to some community. The Internet is the network that connects them all,' Weimann said. 'You can see the virtual community come alive.'" Israel - again?

This is how the Washington Post, the paper that couldn't report the Downing Street Memo in a timely fashion, nor deliver an in depth meaningful analysis of its significance, closes their staggering 2,892-word treatise calling for the abolition of the Internet in the Bush nation-view of security: "In a posting not long after the London attacks, a member of one of the al Qaeda-linked online forums asked how to take action himself. A cell of two or three people is better, replied another member in an exchange translated by the SITE Institute. Even better than that is a 'virtual cell, an agreement between a group of brothers over the Internet.' It is 'safe,' extolled the anonymous poster, and 'nobody will know the identity of each other in the beginning.' Once 'harmony and mutual trust' are established, training conducted and videos watched, then 'you can meet in reality and execute some operation in the field.'"

Yet the same can be said for patriotic American citizen groups, who will now have to operate in secret in order to avoid arrest, imprisonment and torture, along with all the other affronts and brutalities forced upon the American people with the full cooperation of the United States Congress of Gangsters. ALL in American government are now cogs in the wheel of the Nazi/Communist machine soon to destroy US. ALL are collectively guilty by association, and ALL guilty both in fact and law. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and just see what the Bush crime/pedophile family has done to America. And you bet 9-11 was an inside job. Item No. 3 is next!

Not to be outdone by the Bilderberg propagangsters of the Washington Post, there on the other side of the pond we have that smirking doofus in Great Britain, Tony Blair. The Prison Planet article begins, "The Prime Minister on Friday outlined new security measures at his monthly media briefing, with tactics on targeting extremist websites mentioned but not fleshed out as a concept." "Not fleshed out as a concept?" That shouldn't take long - Blair should check out the Post's justification for abolishing the entire Internet!

Remembering the damage done to him and his regime by the Internet revelation of the Downing Street Memo, the article quotes Blair as saying: "'One other point on deportations, once the new grounds take effect, there will be a list drawn up of specific extremist websites, bookshops, networks, centres and particular organisations of concern. Active engagement with any of these will be a trigger for the Home Secretary to consider the deportation of any foreign national.'"

There you go - a Schindler's list of websites that the Fatherland Secretary deems a threat to the criminal activities of butchers Bush/Blair. Perfect! Control, more control and still more control - a New World Order! Elaborating on these newly-defined criminal threats, the article goes on: "The Prime Minister's definition of 'active engagement' needs further public clarity - as engagement with a website can be as minimal as looking at its web pages, through to logging in as a registered user, through to actually submitting content to the website, to being on the 'staff'' running it as webmaster and content managers.

We assume that just looking at a website is unlikely to get you deported, but detailed rules on this point are essential." In other words, you have absolutely nothing to fear but your own government. Merely looking at something will now be a crime! And since when do secret terrorist cells "submit content to websites?" Kinda sounds like what we do on this website!

The article continues: "And how would the data on who has engaged be gathered? One could hypothesise that police or other government agencies could gain access to ISP logfile data to track IP addresses of website visitors, or even gain access to UK-based web hosting firms' servers to access or take over web hosting accounts and databases. Mr. Blair told journalists that the measures were either being taken now, immediately, or under urgent examination."

There you have it! These movements to silence opposition in order to control every human being on the planet are already "under urgent examination!" This is how emerging dictatorships come to power and how they operate! They break so many laws, do it so quickly, and on so many fronts, that they cannot be stopped by rational, legislative means. Think of Bush's war-powers acquired by him through the fascist cogs [Congress of Gangsters] in the huge wheel of government. Think of the USA PATRIOT Act. Think of CAFTA! Before one realizes what is happening, planned criminal activity on the part of the State is legitimized and institutionalized via "the law," government's weapon of choice.

We know what they're thinking, how they're thinking, and what they plan to do to bring their objectives to fruition. It appears too late to stop them in traditional ways: voting, elections, protests, citizen action groups, etc. The Bush crime/pedophile family and its supportive gangsters must be brought down. Let's hope that the one man that can do it, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and the twelve ordinary citizens of the Plame grand jury, hoping desperately that they have both the vision and the courage to do what is needed.
 
 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain** Good News! Soon You'll No Longer Need an Expensive College Education to Work in the US http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08092005.html contributing editor to   - Rodger

[No need to save for that college education.  Doesn't it feel good to get that monkey off your back.  Relax!  Spend that money on something important like a new car.  What ever you do, don't spend it on something of real value such as gold or silver.  Or getting out of debt so that enduring to the end might be posible.  Once the dollar is worthless, we can all sit around and look at the car as we lose thoes excess pounds we've been meaning to lose anyway.  --  Rodger]

Watching the Economy Crumble
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The US continues its descent into the Third World, but you would never know it from news reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July payroll jobs release.

The media gives a bare bones jobs report that is misleading. The public heard that 207,000 jobs were created in July. If not a reassuring figure, at least it is not a disturbing one. On the surface things look to be pretty much OK. It is when you look into the composition of these jobs that the concern arises.

Of the new jobs, 26,000 (about 13%) are tax-supported government jobs. That leaves 181,000 private sector jobs. Of these private sector jobs, 177,000, or 98%, are in the domestic service sector.

Here is the breakdown of the major categories:

    • 30,000 food servers and bar tenders;
    • 28,000 health care and social assistance:
    • 12,000 real estate;
    • 6,000 credit intermediation;
    • 8,000 transit and ground passenger transportation;
    • 50,000 retail trade; and
    • 8,000 wholesale trade.

(There were 7,000 construction jobs, most of which were filled by Mexicans immigrants.)

Not a single one of these jobs produces a tradable good or service that can be exported or serve as an import substitute to help reduce the massive and growing US trade deficit. The US economy is employing people to sell things, to move people around, and to serve them fast food and alcoholic beverages. The items may have an American brand name, but they are mainly made off shore. For example, 70% of Wal-Mart’s goods are made in China.

Where are the jobs for the 65,000 engineers the US graduates each year? Where are the jobs for the physics, chemistry, and math majors? Who needs a university degree to wait tables and serve drinks, to build houses, to work as hospital orderlies, bus drivers, and sales clerks?

In the 21st century job growth in the US economy has consistently reflected that of a Third World country--low productivity domestic services jobs. This goes on month after month and no one catches on--least of all the economists and the policymakers.

Economists assume that every high productivity, high paying job that is shipped out of the country is a net gain for America. We are getting things cheaper, they say. Perhaps, for a while, until the dollar goes. What the cheaper goods argument overlooks are the reductions in the productivity and pay of employed Americans and in the manufacturing, technical, and scientific capability of the US economy.

What is the point of higher education when the job opportunities in the economy do not require it?

These questions are too difficult for economists, politicians, and newscasters. Instead, we hear that “last month the US economy created 207,000 jobs.”

Television has an inexhaustible supply of optimistic economists.

Last weekend CNN had John Rutledge (erroneously billed as the person who drafted President Reagan’s economic program) explaining that the strength of the US economy was “mom and pop businesses.” The college student with whom I was watching the program broke out laughing.

What mom and pop businesses? Everything that used to be mom and pop businesses has been replaced with chains and discount retailers. Auto parts stores are chains, pharmacies are chains, restaurants are chains. Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Lowes, have destroyed hardware stores, clothing stores, appliance stores, building supply stores, gardening shops, whatever--you name it.
Just try starting a small business today. Most gasoline station/convenience stores seem to be the property of immigrant ethnic groups who acquired them with the aid of a taxpayer-financed US government loan.

Today a mom and pop business is a cleaning service that employs Mexicans, a pool service, a lawn service, or a limo service.

In recent years the US economy has been kept afloat by low interest rates. The low interest rates have fueled a real estate boom. As housing prices rise, people refinance their mortgages, take equity out of their homes and spend the money, thus keeping the consumer economy going.

The massive American trade and budget deficits are covered by the willingness of Asian countries, principally Japan and China, to hold US government bonds and to continue to acquire ownership of America’s real assets in exchange for their penetration of US markets.

This game will not go on forever. When it stops, what is left to drive the US economy?
 
 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain** Mandatory Fluoridation Battle Not Over Lovely County Citizen - page 8, August 4, 2005 contributing editor to   - Jeanne

["We are going to do this again, and if we have to, we are going to do it again and we're are going to do it again.".  This is how the powers-that-be get what they want.  The people say NO and repeatedly say no, but those with the money behind them - politics and corporations, as well as their special interest groups - are able to make the people pay for things to benefit these same political and corporate entities.  The message behind these tactics and other tactics should be obvious, the people have no say in what happens.  There is no evidence that fluoridation is beneficial to adults, and whatever benefit there is for children, the documented harm - and falsified research - is enough to NOT want fluoridation.  So, if fluoridation is NOT good for us, why do some in power push so hard to put it in the water?  Refer back to 

 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe Father Faces Trial Over School's 'pro-gay' Book - Arrested after objecting to kindergartner's reading material BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS Posted: August 4, 2005  © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45594 contributing editor to   - Alan

[Short of attacking someone, attending what is supposed to be a public forum and expressing yourself should NOT be treated as a criminal act.  What would have happened if someone on the board had gotten LOUD and David Parker called the cops for the disruptive behavior of the board member?  NOTHING.  The "system" is clearly a one sided and it is obviously NOT on the side of the people.  --  Tribble]
 

A Massachusetts man faces a court trial over a dispute about the teaching of homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class. David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with school officials April 27, unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes. Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain. At a hearing Tuesday, Parker's trial date was set for Sept. 21. The Lexington School Board contends Parker deliberately set out to be arrested and make national headlines. Parker's attorney, Jeffrey Denner, rejected that claim as supporters picketed outside the courthouse. "That is simply untrue. I don't speak for the school, but that is simply untrue," he said. "He was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth, from the school to the school committee. His intent was absolutely not to be arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well." The dispute began last spring when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners. "There's a larger issue here locally and nationally and internationally about the role of family and what kind of encroachments government can make into children's and people's lives," Denner told reporters.

David Parker, parent of kindergartner, stands before Judge Robert McKenna in Concord District Court April 28 after spending the night in jail (Photo: Article 8 Alliance)

The illustrated book, according to the local non-profit group Article 8 Alliance, says, "A family can be made up in many different ways" and includes this text: "Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath." Another illustrated page says: "Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family." Article 8, an opponent of the state's same-sex marriage law, says the book "uses subtle but powerful emotions to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of the young children." A backer of the Lexington School District, Laura Tully, argued, according to WCVB-TV in Boston, "A 5-year-old who is coming to the classroom with two moms deserves to be in a classroom that includes books that show his family." Denner said he is negotiating with school officials to prevent the trial, but he also indicated that Parker likely will file a civil suit in federal court by this fall against the town of Lexington, the school system and its officials.

David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)

 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y                                and R e s p o n s e With Friends Like This ... U.S. - ISRAELI RIFT CLOUDS "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim080305.shtml By: Justin Raimondo contributing editor to  - Rodger

[This article was intended to accompany the one from yesterday, and through whatever excuses I could pick, I omitted the URL for this story.  BUT, here is the whole article.  Maybe now, the previous comments will make better since.

Here is an alert    received shining the light on frailty.  Thanks Bill.

Dear Mr. Rockyview, I hate to rain on your parade, but, I think the point of Rodger's message revolved around the fact that our faithful and trusted allies, the IsraeLIES, sold high-tech weapons to our enemies, the communist Chinese.  This was shown in the story Rodger attached to his comments, complete with its url:
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THIS...  U.S. - ISRAELI RIFT CLOUDS "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP"
 By: Justin Raimondo   http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim080305.shtml

The story about Russian and Chinese military exercises is interesting, but, the title "With Friends Like This" makes no sense if you don't include the Justin Raimondo story.  Is this just a test to see if I'm paying attention?  Later,  Bill.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was due for a visit to Washington last week, but failed to show: the excuse given was another uptick in violence on the West Bank, but Israeli sources indicated the real reason: Mofaz is miffed that the U.S. is now demanding a written apology for Israeli arms sales to China.

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz was first to break the story that Israel faced U.S.-imposed sanctions as a result of selling replacement parts for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to China, Harpy Killer unmanned attack drones, designed to take out radar systems – just the sort of thing the Red Army needs in order to make good on its threat to invade Taiwan.

U.S.-Israeli relations are in crisis, as the Americans demand that Israel fess up to the details of more than 60 secret agreements with the Red Chinese. U.S. technology transfers to Israel, in the guise of "foreign aid," have been funneled through the back door to Beijing via Tel Aviv – and the U.S. is trying to put a stop to it once and for all.

Israeli officials argue that, in the case of the UAVs, they were merely repairing older model drones that had been legally exported from the U.S. to Israel. The reality is that these drones received a major upgrade – using technology developed by the U.S. and shared with the Israelis. A few months after the sanctions were imposed, some Chinese general was boasting about how easy it would be to nuke a few American cities, and the neocons were demanding a bigger defense budget to counter a purported threat from Beijing – one their Israeli friends are helping to create.

"If things were done that were not acceptable to the Americans, then we are sorry," Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom avers, "but these things were done with the utmost innocence."

Yeah, sure, Shalom: that's why Israel has been sneaking around behind our back, selling Phalcon fighters to China until they were caught red-handed. That's why they've been leaking U.S.-produced military technology like a sieve, and why they are now chafing at signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. about future weapons sales. Yet Shalom has the nerve to protest: Who – us?

The sheer arrogance of the Israelis is breathtaking. So accustomed are they to the best military equipment U.S. tax dollars can buy that their sense of entitlement blinds them to our need to maintain our own security. Why aren't we putting Israel first? This certainly seems to be a change in policy direction, and it's an inconvenience they find quite irritating. Writing in Ha'aretz, Ze'ev Schiff complains:

"The American side is broadcasting that it has been burned by Israel several times, and this time it has decided to be firm. Because they feel affronted, they are not taking into account the political situation in Israel, and are trying to dictate to the Knesset, in an insulting manner, a timetable for its decisions. An agreement is meant to end a crisis, and not to force a friendly nation to agree to be punished in stages. Even a banana republic would not sign such an agreement."

The U.S. provides $2 billion per year in military aid to Israel, not counting all the "special" dispensations demanded by Tel Aviv every time they are somehow maneuvered into making minor concessions to the Palestinians. Without Uncle Sam, Israel would sink not so slowly beneath a giant demographic wave, buried alive under an Arab population tsunami that would soon overwhelm the Zionist experiment. Yet they turn around, and, without the least compunction, sell advanced weaponry – created by American technology and tax dollars – to a country that has the potential to become our main military competitor.

What's up with that?

What's up is the seemingly obvious point that Israel, after all, is not the 51st state, as much as it acts like it at times, and even though its supporters in this country treat it as if it were. Israel is a separate nation, with its own national interests quite distinct from our own. Increasingly, in the post-9/11 world, those interests are in opposition, in spite of the mythos pushed by Israel Firsters in the U.S. that the age of terrorism has brought the two countries closer together.

Our reflexive support for Israel's depredations in Palestine empowers the worldwide Islamist insurgency against the U.S., and undermines our position vis-à-vis the existing Arab states. Up until this point, the Bush administration has been motivated by political considerations on the domestic front, which require pacifying a vocal Christian fundamentalist faction that supports Israel for theological reasons. Yet pressing geostrategic and military considerations have lately necessitated a modification of U.S. policy: the global "struggle against extremism," AKA the "war on terrorism," means we must win over relatively moderate elements in the Muslim world and minimize the influence of Muslim militants. Bin Laden and his allies point to our alliance with Israel – and our single-minded pursuit of Israeli interests, even to the detriment of our own – as evidence that a "Crusader-Zionist" conspiracy exists to destroy Islam and enslave Muslims the world over.

Israel's own actions, on the other hand, have woken up American policymakers to a rising danger posed, not by terrorist infiltrators, but by the penetration of U.S. security by our alleged closest allies in the struggle against terrorism. The U.S. has frozen a number of military and technical interactions with the Israelis, including the provision of certain equipment to the IDF, such as night-vision equipment. However, according to Ha'aretz,

"Some of the equipment disappeared from one of the shipments, and an Israeli probe indicates it was stolen before the goods left the U.S. Meanwhile, Washington has declared a freeze on all such equipment shipments to Israel, which could harm the IDF's operative activity."

Is Ha'aretz saying the Americans stole their own equipment? And if the Israelis are probing this incident, then what are the Americans doing about it? After all, the theft occurred on American, not Israeli, soil. Ha'aretz continues:

"Following the crisis, one can sense the repulsion toward Israel among lower- and middle-ranking officials in Washington. More and more of them are saying that it is not worth doing business with Israel."

Repulsion – an interesting choice of words. Yes, there is something repulsive about a small nation that depends for its very life on a much larger and more powerful big brother, yet – out of resentment, or sheer perversity – turns around and stabs its protector in the back, while loudly professing undying loyalty and friendship.

This weapons imbroglio is what has visibly roiled the surface of U.S.-Israeli relations at the moment, but the future promises much rougher turbulence. Prosecutors pursuing the Larry Franklin-AIPAC espionage investigation have already landed one indictment, with at least two more in the works, and this is really only the beginning of what promises to be one of the most politically portentous spy scandals since the trials of Alger Hiss. Franklin, the Pentagon's chief Iran specialist, was handing over sensitive classified information to the Israelis for ideological reasons: he's a true believer in the neoconservative cause, just as Hiss was a communist-leaning ideologue. Like Hiss – and unlike, say, Jonathan Pollard – Franklin did it for love, not money: devotion to an ideological vision that puts the interests of a foreign nation first.

This same ideological vision animates all too many Bush administration officials, most of them centered in the upper civilian echelons of the Pentagon and clustered around Vice President Dick Cheney. The pincer movement of prosecutors homing in on this pro-Israel cabal – Paul McNulty, in the Eastern District of Virginia, investigating AIPAC-gate, and Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame case – has the neocons caught in a legal vise. They are doing their best to wriggle out of it, but Fitzgerald isn't called "Bulldog" for nothing – and McNulty, who is now moving to interrogate Israeli diplomats, is turning out to be no pussycat, either.

Mr. Schiff is outraged that we are treating Israel like "a banana republic," but how long has the U.S. been treated like a hapless sugar daddy, who not only has to pay for a tart's time but is subjected to having his pockets rifled – and his pants stolen – in the morning? Even as they're stretching out one hand to receive the latest "emergency" subsidy, they're lifting our wallet – and our car keys – with the other, ripping off American secrets and technology and selling it to the highest bidder.

What is needed is a U.S. policy reversal vis-à-vis Israel: the "special relationship" should be downgraded to a neutral stance, with the potential to become openly adversarial. What's needed, in short, is a good dose of foreign policy realism about Israel.

All states, of course, are potential adversaries, as they constantly seek to expand their domains at others' expense. Yet some temporary accommodation is always necessary, and out of these are born alliances, some unique in that they seem to be semi-permanent, as in the Atlanticist duo of the U.S. and Great Britain. Within that union of interests, however, it is clearly the U.S. that is the dominant partner, with Britain, the declining superpower, in a strictly advisory role.

The Israelis, on the other hand, are not passive recipients of aid and instructions from Washington. They, like the Brits, are forced to recognize the new world reality of American power, but, unlike London, the Israelis assume an aggressive stance. The Israeli idea of an alliance is not so much a union of interests as a symbiosis, in which one partner uses the other to pursue its own interests: the ally is treated, not as a comrade-in-arms but as a cat's-paw. It is a strategy of parasitism that has been so successful that the host is beginning to feel the first debilitating effects – fatigue, nausea, and the sudden shocking realization that something isn't quite right.

The Americans have finally had enough: sanctions, however, should be only the beginning. U.S. aid to Israel is a drain that we can no longer afford – especially when our charity is rewarded with malice. If we're such a mighty empire, then why are we paying billions per year in "aid" to Israel – not to mention a somewhat lesser amount to Arab dictatorships such as Egypt? Ours is an empire of the unlimited purse, as the Old Right author Garet Garrett used to say: "Everything goes out, and nothing comes in." Except for spies, foreign lobbyists, and endless trouble.

I have to say that Antiwar.com has come under a lot of pressure to go easy on Israel, and to refrain from making judgements that might seem, at times, to be unduly harsh, even to those who are reasonably objective on the subject. I have been told that my writings would be a lot more welcome in "mainstream" venues if only I would lay off the Israelis, and stop doing investigative work on their political and intelligence activities in this country, both overt and covert – or, at least, stop emphasizing it so much. A tiresome campaign of calumny and smears has been unleashed against me, personally, in certain quarters, with right-wing/neoconservative hacks routinely smearing me and this Web site. That strategy has failed miserably. As prosecutors home in on an extensive Israeli spy ring inside the highest reaches of the Pentagon, and the same crowd is implicated in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame and the fabrication of "intelligence" that got us into a war, Antiwar.com's refusal to drop this angle is proving prescient. We've stuck by our guns, and it turns out we were right after all – where there's smoke, there's fire, and, in this case, it's beginning to look like a forest fire.
 
 

I N S I G H T With Friends Like This ... - Responses http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/08/02/exercises.shtml contributing editor to   - Rodger

[Common "Christian" belief is that in the last days countries such as Russia and China will come together to march against God's chosen people Israel.  The final battle where God and those raptured (never mind that His chosen people are left here for the final battle) return to destroy satin and the beast once and for all.
   If this is the case, why is Israel (our good friend, "God's chosen") giving China, who by the way is holding joint military exercises with Russia, the very technology and tools it will need to attempt such a task?
   Is it just me or is something not kosher?  Rodger]

[Rodger, Rodger, Rodger, ......where is the love in all of this? Can't we just all get along?  Remember, Hal Lindsey in his book "The Late Great Planet Earth" said that the Jews will become evangelists in the last days and preach the Gospel to the world.  You know a great prophet like Lindsey wouldn't lie to us, right?  It's obvious that those Jews that you refer to are just getting in close to our sworn enemy, China, so they can evangelize them.  May peace be with you, brother. Later, Bill.]

Russia, China Prepare for Joint War Games
-  MosNews

Nearly 10,000 troops from Russia and China will participate in the first joint military exercises between the two countries scheduled for August 18-25, the Xinhua news agency reported on Tuesday. The exercises, dubbed “Peace Mission 2005” and involving army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units, will be held in Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East, and in the coastal Chinese province of Shandong and nearby waters, it said. “The exercises are not aimed at a third party or concerned with the interests of any third country,” the Chinese defense ministry said in a statement. Relations between China and Russia, formerly the Soviet Union, were strained by decades of mistrust during the Cold War, but the two nuclear powers have found much common ground in recent years and the military relationship has been blossoming, Reuters points out. Both are leading members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which in July called for U.S.-led troops to fix a date to pull out of bases in Central Asia. Russia is also a major supplier of weapons to China.

The exercises, dubbed “Peace Mission 2005”, involve army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units / Photo: AFP

China and Russia have invited the defense ministers from other members of the organization and observer states to watch the joint exercises.

The point of the drills was “to deepen Sino-Russian mutual trust, promote mutual friendship and enhance the cooperation and coordination of the two armed forces”.

They will also “help strengthen the capability of the two armed forces in jointly striking at international terrorism, extremism and separatism”, the statement reads.
 

*  What does "do not drink the kool-aid" mean? [click this line]  or goto this link http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/kool-aid/do not drink the kool-aid.html

**  As the ‘Great And Powerful Oz’ once said to Dorothy, “Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!” because appearances can be deceiving.  You HAVE TO look behind to curtain to learn the truth.

goto top .....mailto: rockyview@tellme#&1st.net
The above addresss is NOT correct.  For security reasons, the "#&" characters must be removed to be a correct address.  This reduces the possibility of a hacker autosearching for address links.
Simply copy and paste this address in your mail program, BUT remember to delete the "#&" characters.