Federal Reserve:
Hiding 9-11 Evidence?
Last Friday, we noticed a news item that was picked up by the on-line news service, Freedom’s Phoenix Headline News out of Phoenix, Arizona.
The news story was titled, “Former Fed analyst questions M1 currency component spike prior to 9/11,” and was originally published on March 22 in the Muckraker Report.
The story is about William Bergman a senior analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago whose employment with the Bank was abruptly terminated after he sought answers to a question relating to an investigation he had been directed to undertake.
According to the Muckraker Report, Bergman had noted that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve had issued supervisory letters to the 12 Reserve Banks in the weeks after September 11, 2001 urging scrutiny of suspicious activity reports in tracking terrorism activity and financing. However, Bergman also noticed that the Board of Governors had issued a similar letter, albeit one that did not refer explicitly to terrorism, on August 2, 2001. According to Bergman, terrorism and terrorist financing were known to be part of ‘suspicious activity’ however, and the August 2, 2001 supervisory letter clearly called for scrutiny of suspicious activity, which implies and includes the tracking of terrorism activity and financing. In December, Bergman called the staff of the Board of Governors to ask why the Board had issued the August 2, 2001 letter.
Within two weeks Bergman’s assignment was abruptly terminated and his credentials canceled and he was forced to resign.
The Muckraker Report quotes Bergman saying,
“The currency component of M1 (Federal Reserve Notes circulating outside of banks) rose especially rapidly in July and August 2001. In fact, up to and including August 2001, that month (August 2001) was one of the three fastest growing months for the currency component of M1 since 1947, on a seasonally adjusted basis, even on the heels of significantly above-average growth in July 2001. Much of the July-August surge (over $5 billion above-average) seems to have been in the $100 denomination. Among other explanations, persons aware of any imminent terrorist attacks and concerned about possible asset seizures such as those that arose after the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and the 1998 embassy bombings could have been trying to liquidate their bank accounts in July and August 2001. The money trail could provide important clues about people aware of, if not responsible for, the attacks. I looked at some internal data bearing on this issue that was available to anyone within the Federal Reserve’s internal computer network; after going back to look at this important data again a week or two later, it was no longer freely available, but password protected.”
Click here to read the full story http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id378.html
AMERICA'S TREASONOUS LILLYPUTIANS
Ron Paul is...
The Ron Paul Revolution Movie!
JFK/Martin Luther King/Ron Paul BANNED Youtube Video...
Ron Paul: A Man for All Seasons
Ron Paul: A New Hope
The New World Order...
01 April 2007
More Funding for the War in Iraq
More Funding for the War in Iraq
BY Congressman Ron Paul (TX)
Last week the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill that was the worst of all worlds. The president’s request would have already set a spending record, but the Democratic leadership packed 21 billion additional dollars of mostly pork barrel spending in attempt to win Democrat votes. The total burden on the American taxpayer for this bill alone will be an astonishing 124 billion dollars. Democrats promised to oppose the war by adding more money to fight the war than even the president requested.
I am pleased to have joined with the majority of my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill.
Among the pork added to attract votes was more than 200 million dollars to the dairy industry, 74 million for peanut farmers, and 25 million dollars for spinach farmers. Also, the bill included more than two billion dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid, including half a billion dollars for Lebanon and Eastern Europe.
What might be most disturbing, however, is the treatment of veterans in the bill. Playing politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance by adding it onto a controversial bill to attract votes strikes me as highly inappropriate. Veterans’ funding should be included in a properly structured, comprehensive appropriations bill. Better still, veterans spending should be automatically funded and not subject to yearly politicking and nit-picking.
While I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning and do believe that there is a strong constitutional role for Congress when it comes to war, I could not support what appeared to be micro-management of the war in this bill. There is a distinction between the legitimate oversight role of Congress and attempts to meddle in the details of how the war is to be fought. The withdrawal and readiness benchmarks in this bill are in my view inappropriate. That is why the president has threatened to veto this bill.
In the last Congress I co-sponsored legislation urging the president to come up with a plan to conclude our military activity in Iraq, but that legislation contained no date-specific deadlines to complete withdrawal.
Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.
To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran – as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst032607.htm
BY Congressman Ron Paul (TX)
Last week the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill that was the worst of all worlds. The president’s request would have already set a spending record, but the Democratic leadership packed 21 billion additional dollars of mostly pork barrel spending in attempt to win Democrat votes. The total burden on the American taxpayer for this bill alone will be an astonishing 124 billion dollars. Democrats promised to oppose the war by adding more money to fight the war than even the president requested.
I am pleased to have joined with the majority of my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill.
Among the pork added to attract votes was more than 200 million dollars to the dairy industry, 74 million for peanut farmers, and 25 million dollars for spinach farmers. Also, the bill included more than two billion dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid, including half a billion dollars for Lebanon and Eastern Europe.
What might be most disturbing, however, is the treatment of veterans in the bill. Playing politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance by adding it onto a controversial bill to attract votes strikes me as highly inappropriate. Veterans’ funding should be included in a properly structured, comprehensive appropriations bill. Better still, veterans spending should be automatically funded and not subject to yearly politicking and nit-picking.
While I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning and do believe that there is a strong constitutional role for Congress when it comes to war, I could not support what appeared to be micro-management of the war in this bill. There is a distinction between the legitimate oversight role of Congress and attempts to meddle in the details of how the war is to be fought. The withdrawal and readiness benchmarks in this bill are in my view inappropriate. That is why the president has threatened to veto this bill.
In the last Congress I co-sponsored legislation urging the president to come up with a plan to conclude our military activity in Iraq, but that legislation contained no date-specific deadlines to complete withdrawal.
Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.
To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran – as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst032607.htm
Israel Lobby Targets Tax Honesty Movement. Are Kidd, Becraft, Banister and Schulz “Extremists”?
Israel Lobby Targets Tax Honesty Movement. Are Kidd, Becraft, Banister and Schulz “Extremists”?
As we reported in our previous article, the upcoming Give Me Liberty 2007 conference will examine U.S. Middle East Policy through the prism of the U.S. Constitution. During the conference we will examine the work of professors Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Walt (Harvard University) titled, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” and the book by Jimmy Carter titled, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.
Substantial documentary evidence presented by Mearsheimer, Walt and Carter supports the argument that the United States has abandoned its own national interest and security to advance the interests of Israel, that neither strategic nor moral arguments can justify America’s unconditional support for Israel, that the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israel’s unlawful expansion and military occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and that U.S. policy in the Middle East (including giving Israel well over $140 billion in U.S. income tax revenues) has been driven by the activities of the “Israel Lobby.”
Their work documents how the Israeli Lobby unashamedly boasts of its control over U.S. domestic and foreign policy and public opinion, and attacks any person or organization that criticizes or is perceived to be a threat to Israel’s interests.
According to Mearsheimer and Walt, “We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction…The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.”
Referring to them as “extremists”, the Lobby has attacked columnist Devvy Kidd, constitutional attorney Larry Becraft, former IRS Special Agent Joe Banister, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz and others affiliated with the Tax Honesty Movement who have developed a substantial body of documentary evidence that conclusively proves the present federal income tax is an unlawful (Constitutionally prohibited) direct, un-apportioned tax on the labor of American citizens. See “Extremism In America: Tax Protest Movement” on one of the Israeli Lobby’s websites. (Don’t forget to click on UPDATE)
Why would the Israeli Lobby’s Anti-Defamation League take such a keen interest in defending the method by which the U.S. Government collects its internal revenues?
Why would the Lobby attempt to publicly demonize American citizens who are properly exercising their Right of Free Speech and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, as expressly guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Why would the Lobby concern itself with “extremists” who are peacefully and lawfully defending America’s Constitution and Founding Principles?
According to the Lobby’s website,
“[T]he Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913 by a lawyer and fearless visionary by the name of Sigmund Livingston…’to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience, and if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. . . to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike. . . put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” See http://www.adl.org/ADLHistory/1913_1920.asp
“The particulars may change, but the goal remains the same: to stand up for the core values of America against those who seek to undermine them through word or deed.” See http://www.adl.org/ADLHistory/intro.asp
“ADL fights hatred, extremism and terrorism. Our goal: to make the world a safer place. Over the past few years, we have expanded our expertise and capabilities to confront a more dangerous world.
“Our three priorities are to:
· Gather, analyze and disseminate intelligence on extremism and hate activity
· Enhance law enforcement’s ability to combat serious threats
· Provide assistance, support and resources on security to the Jewish community
“ADL is meeting the CHALLENGE: we have a nationwide fact-finding infrastructure. We take ACTION: bringing law enforcement agencies together, implementing strategies to promote security awareness, systemically monitoring hate sites on the Internet, providing training on extremist ideologies and building bridges between Jewish institutions and law enforcement. In ways large and small, measurable and not, ADL gets RESULTS. We are making this nation a safer place.” See http://www.adl.org/main_about_adl.asp
The Lobby says its goal is “to stand up for the core values of America.” However, the true core values and guiding principles of America are concisely articulated in its Founding Documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Either the Israeli Lobby is intentionally misrepresenting its purpose and objectives, or its understanding of what constitutes America’s “core values” is immensely different than that of our country’s Founders. There can be no other rational explanation for why the Lobby would attempt to publicly demonize American patriots such as Kidd, Becraft, Banister, Schulz and others who seek only to hold the Federal Government accountable to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Unlike the United States, the nation of Israel has no Constitution or Bill of Rights that limits the power of government and guarantees the individual Rights of its People. Israel’s government is not subject to constitutional limits on its power, nor does it recognize, guarantee or protect the equal rights of every person living under its military authority and control, including those Palestinians residing in the Occupied Territories.
Israel’s government is dominated by a class of government-corporate-military elites who exercise complete control over the country. This control over the Israeli and Palestinian People would not be possible without the powerful influence of the Israeli Lobby and the billions in annual financial support received from the U.S. government. This may explain the Lobby’s attack on Kidd, Becraft, Banister, Schulz and others who objectively criticize America’s relationship with Israel.
Our government, unlike Israel’s, rests upon a firm foundation of Constitutional Law designed to secure the individual rights and freedoms of every American. The lawful authority exercised by our government is limited to that which is delegated and derived from the consent of the People. In America, the rights and freedoms come not from our servant government, but from God. Unlike the State of Israel, America has a form of government and system of justice that strictly prohibit the discrimination, maltreatment and oppression of any person or group of people based on their ethnic origin, religion or race.
In America, unlike Israel, we possess certain rights that cannot be denied except by due process of law. Those rights include the right to private property and to be secure in our homes and possessions, the right to defend our lives and property against aggression, and the right to live our lives according to the dictates of personal conscience so long as we do no harm, and respect the equal individual rights of our fellow Americans.
Contrary to widely misinformed public opinion, Israel does not recognize the concept of inalienable (God-given) individual rights for every person regardless of ethnic origin, religion or race. Israel does not share America’s core moral values expressed in our Founding Documents. Israel does not guarantee religious freedom to its citizens, nor tolerate free religious expression.
Every year billions of dollars are confiscated from U.S. taxpayers by our Federal Government and sent to Israel in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. This theft of the labor of American citizens is made even more egregious by the fact that the bulk of our foreign aid to Israel is used to expand and enforce its unlawful and immoral occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and its subjugation and long-standing oppression of the Palestinian People.
America’s “core values” reflect our devotion to individual liberty, and the right of every person to live free of arbitrary government coercion and force. However, we cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility. Our decisions and actions have consequences. Sometimes those consequences extend far beyond what we anticipate, or can even imagine.
America’s blind and unconditional support for Israel over the past 40 years has produced catastrophic consequences for our Country. The core values of our society and the integrity of our government institutions have been thoroughly corrupted by the influence of a foreign Lobby.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and countless American patriots over the past 230 years have reaffirmed our nation’s core values, while warning of the consequences of ignorance and apathy among the People. Modern American patriots such as Kidd, Becraft, Banister and Schulz, like our nation’s Founders, are keenly aware that freedom cannot coexist with ignorance and apathy. Clearly, the Israeli Lobby perceives our vigilance and love of country to be a threat to its objectives, but why?
Other than a desire to protect at all costs the tax revenues of the U.S. Government (as goes the U.S. income tax, so goes U.S. aid to Israel), we can think of no reason for the Israel Lobby’s defamation of Kidd, Becraft, Banister, Schulz and the others who have never defamed or threatened in any manner the Jewish people or the state of Israel, who believe in justice and fair treatment of all citizens alike and who have never engaged in discrimination against or ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.
As the saying goes, it would appear the Israel Lobby has gotten “too big for its britches.”
The Israel Lobby behaves as if it can do no wrong and is untouchable. In their paper, Mearsheimer and Walt address the Lobby’s extraordinary efforts to bend U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction. They address the Lobby’s extraordinary influence in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Executive, its extraordinary manipulation of America’s media and think tanks and its growing efforts on American campuses to perpetuate myths about and prevent criticism of Israel.
For more insight into the extent of the Lobby’s influence (control) in the U.S. Congress, read the what Paul Findley, the former congressman from Illinois reported in his article “Liberating America From Israel.” Better yet, read his book “They Dare to Speak Out.”
In addition, read what James Abourezk, the former Senator from South Dakota reported in his article “Support for Israel in Congress is based on fear.”
One gets another glimpse of the Lobby’s powerful influence over people like Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi by reading the article by Gregory Levey titled, “Inside America’s powerful Israel Lobby,” in which Levey writes about his observations at the Lobby’s annual three-day conference in Washington DC last week.
Who or what can stop the juggernaut – this terrible, irresistible force that is destroying Palestine, threatening the stability of the world order and endangering the American Republic and the Liberty of the American People?
In a Carter Center press release issued on 15 December 2006 entitled "A letter to Jewish citizens of America," Carter wrote,
“ [T]he overwhelming bias for Israel comes from among Christians like me who have been taught since childhood to honor and protect God's chosen people from among whom came our own savior, Jesus Christ. An additional factor, especially in the political arena, is the powerful influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is exercising its legitimate goal of explaining the current policies of Israel's government and arousing maximum support in our country. There are no significant countervailing voices."
In Carter’s op-ed to the Los Angeles Times on December 8, 2006 he wrote,
"For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts."
As Findley wrote in Liberating America From Israel,
“The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning.”
Herein lies a disturbing explanation for the reprehensible and unconstitutional treatment that American citizens such as Irwin Schiff and Dick Simkanin (and lawyers such as Becraft and Jeff Dickstein) have received in criminal tax trials. The Lobby’s heavy-handed demonizing and intimidation of people for attempting to intelligently question the origin and operation of the federal income tax system may well be going beyond the ADL’s website, reaching into the halls of justice.
We take issue with Jimmy Carter’s pessimistic assertion that there are no countervailing voices (to counteract the Lobby’s cacophony). Carter is wrong on this. There are countervailing voices that speak in harmony, that are far more powerful and carry far more weight in the day-to-day affairs of the United States than does the Lobby or any other special interest.
One need only ponder the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to discover these countervailing voices. Listen and you will hear a harmony of the most powerful voices of all mankind, those of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, John and Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin and the rest of the Founding Fathers. In your hearts, you will feel the force of Liberty.
We are not to be intimidated by the Lobby. We are to be inspired by our Founding Documents and their underlying essential principles. Each generation is on call to defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The battle continues next week in Alexandria Virginia at GML 2007.
Unless the people we have invited to speak at the conference (representatives from the Israel Lobby and the Governments of Israel and the United States, and various scholars), or anyone else can effectively deny the facts in Carter’s book and the Paper by Mearsheimer and Walt, then we, as responsible citizens of America have a duty to defend the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution by petitioning the U.S. Government to suspend all aid to Israel at least until Israel ends is occupation of Arab land unlawfully seized in 1967.
If ending aid to Israel means an end to the Police State policies and programs that have been imposed on the People of America since 9-11, and that have resulted in a loss of Freedom, then that is what must be done.
Not that anyone would ask for our opinion regarding a lasting solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, but if they did we would suggest a TWO-STATE, ONE-CONSTITUTION solution, with that Constitution protecting individual Rights, Equal Protection under the Law and Due Process for all.
It may be that a little “extremism” is just what the doctor ordered.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-03-22.htm
As we reported in our previous article, the upcoming Give Me Liberty 2007 conference will examine U.S. Middle East Policy through the prism of the U.S. Constitution. During the conference we will examine the work of professors Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Walt (Harvard University) titled, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” and the book by Jimmy Carter titled, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.
Substantial documentary evidence presented by Mearsheimer, Walt and Carter supports the argument that the United States has abandoned its own national interest and security to advance the interests of Israel, that neither strategic nor moral arguments can justify America’s unconditional support for Israel, that the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israel’s unlawful expansion and military occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and that U.S. policy in the Middle East (including giving Israel well over $140 billion in U.S. income tax revenues) has been driven by the activities of the “Israel Lobby.”
Their work documents how the Israeli Lobby unashamedly boasts of its control over U.S. domestic and foreign policy and public opinion, and attacks any person or organization that criticizes or is perceived to be a threat to Israel’s interests.
According to Mearsheimer and Walt, “We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction…The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.”
Referring to them as “extremists”, the Lobby has attacked columnist Devvy Kidd, constitutional attorney Larry Becraft, former IRS Special Agent Joe Banister, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz and others affiliated with the Tax Honesty Movement who have developed a substantial body of documentary evidence that conclusively proves the present federal income tax is an unlawful (Constitutionally prohibited) direct, un-apportioned tax on the labor of American citizens. See “Extremism In America: Tax Protest Movement” on one of the Israeli Lobby’s websites. (Don’t forget to click on UPDATE)
Why would the Israeli Lobby’s Anti-Defamation League take such a keen interest in defending the method by which the U.S. Government collects its internal revenues?
Why would the Lobby attempt to publicly demonize American citizens who are properly exercising their Right of Free Speech and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, as expressly guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Why would the Lobby concern itself with “extremists” who are peacefully and lawfully defending America’s Constitution and Founding Principles?
According to the Lobby’s website,
“[T]he Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913 by a lawyer and fearless visionary by the name of Sigmund Livingston…’to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience, and if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. . . to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike. . . put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” See http://www.adl.org/ADLHistory/1913_1920.asp
“The particulars may change, but the goal remains the same: to stand up for the core values of America against those who seek to undermine them through word or deed.” See http://www.adl.org/ADLHistory/intro.asp
“ADL fights hatred, extremism and terrorism. Our goal: to make the world a safer place. Over the past few years, we have expanded our expertise and capabilities to confront a more dangerous world.
“Our three priorities are to:
· Gather, analyze and disseminate intelligence on extremism and hate activity
· Enhance law enforcement’s ability to combat serious threats
· Provide assistance, support and resources on security to the Jewish community
“ADL is meeting the CHALLENGE: we have a nationwide fact-finding infrastructure. We take ACTION: bringing law enforcement agencies together, implementing strategies to promote security awareness, systemically monitoring hate sites on the Internet, providing training on extremist ideologies and building bridges between Jewish institutions and law enforcement. In ways large and small, measurable and not, ADL gets RESULTS. We are making this nation a safer place.” See http://www.adl.org/main_about_adl.asp
The Lobby says its goal is “to stand up for the core values of America.” However, the true core values and guiding principles of America are concisely articulated in its Founding Documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Either the Israeli Lobby is intentionally misrepresenting its purpose and objectives, or its understanding of what constitutes America’s “core values” is immensely different than that of our country’s Founders. There can be no other rational explanation for why the Lobby would attempt to publicly demonize American patriots such as Kidd, Becraft, Banister, Schulz and others who seek only to hold the Federal Government accountable to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Unlike the United States, the nation of Israel has no Constitution or Bill of Rights that limits the power of government and guarantees the individual Rights of its People. Israel’s government is not subject to constitutional limits on its power, nor does it recognize, guarantee or protect the equal rights of every person living under its military authority and control, including those Palestinians residing in the Occupied Territories.
Israel’s government is dominated by a class of government-corporate-military elites who exercise complete control over the country. This control over the Israeli and Palestinian People would not be possible without the powerful influence of the Israeli Lobby and the billions in annual financial support received from the U.S. government. This may explain the Lobby’s attack on Kidd, Becraft, Banister, Schulz and others who objectively criticize America’s relationship with Israel.
Our government, unlike Israel’s, rests upon a firm foundation of Constitutional Law designed to secure the individual rights and freedoms of every American. The lawful authority exercised by our government is limited to that which is delegated and derived from the consent of the People. In America, the rights and freedoms come not from our servant government, but from God. Unlike the State of Israel, America has a form of government and system of justice that strictly prohibit the discrimination, maltreatment and oppression of any person or group of people based on their ethnic origin, religion or race.
In America, unlike Israel, we possess certain rights that cannot be denied except by due process of law. Those rights include the right to private property and to be secure in our homes and possessions, the right to defend our lives and property against aggression, and the right to live our lives according to the dictates of personal conscience so long as we do no harm, and respect the equal individual rights of our fellow Americans.
Contrary to widely misinformed public opinion, Israel does not recognize the concept of inalienable (God-given) individual rights for every person regardless of ethnic origin, religion or race. Israel does not share America’s core moral values expressed in our Founding Documents. Israel does not guarantee religious freedom to its citizens, nor tolerate free religious expression.
Every year billions of dollars are confiscated from U.S. taxpayers by our Federal Government and sent to Israel in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. This theft of the labor of American citizens is made even more egregious by the fact that the bulk of our foreign aid to Israel is used to expand and enforce its unlawful and immoral occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and its subjugation and long-standing oppression of the Palestinian People.
America’s “core values” reflect our devotion to individual liberty, and the right of every person to live free of arbitrary government coercion and force. However, we cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility. Our decisions and actions have consequences. Sometimes those consequences extend far beyond what we anticipate, or can even imagine.
America’s blind and unconditional support for Israel over the past 40 years has produced catastrophic consequences for our Country. The core values of our society and the integrity of our government institutions have been thoroughly corrupted by the influence of a foreign Lobby.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and countless American patriots over the past 230 years have reaffirmed our nation’s core values, while warning of the consequences of ignorance and apathy among the People. Modern American patriots such as Kidd, Becraft, Banister and Schulz, like our nation’s Founders, are keenly aware that freedom cannot coexist with ignorance and apathy. Clearly, the Israeli Lobby perceives our vigilance and love of country to be a threat to its objectives, but why?
Other than a desire to protect at all costs the tax revenues of the U.S. Government (as goes the U.S. income tax, so goes U.S. aid to Israel), we can think of no reason for the Israel Lobby’s defamation of Kidd, Becraft, Banister, Schulz and the others who have never defamed or threatened in any manner the Jewish people or the state of Israel, who believe in justice and fair treatment of all citizens alike and who have never engaged in discrimination against or ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.
As the saying goes, it would appear the Israel Lobby has gotten “too big for its britches.”
The Israel Lobby behaves as if it can do no wrong and is untouchable. In their paper, Mearsheimer and Walt address the Lobby’s extraordinary efforts to bend U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction. They address the Lobby’s extraordinary influence in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Executive, its extraordinary manipulation of America’s media and think tanks and its growing efforts on American campuses to perpetuate myths about and prevent criticism of Israel.
For more insight into the extent of the Lobby’s influence (control) in the U.S. Congress, read the what Paul Findley, the former congressman from Illinois reported in his article “Liberating America From Israel.” Better yet, read his book “They Dare to Speak Out.”
In addition, read what James Abourezk, the former Senator from South Dakota reported in his article “Support for Israel in Congress is based on fear.”
One gets another glimpse of the Lobby’s powerful influence over people like Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi by reading the article by Gregory Levey titled, “Inside America’s powerful Israel Lobby,” in which Levey writes about his observations at the Lobby’s annual three-day conference in Washington DC last week.
Who or what can stop the juggernaut – this terrible, irresistible force that is destroying Palestine, threatening the stability of the world order and endangering the American Republic and the Liberty of the American People?
In a Carter Center press release issued on 15 December 2006 entitled "A letter to Jewish citizens of America," Carter wrote,
“ [T]he overwhelming bias for Israel comes from among Christians like me who have been taught since childhood to honor and protect God's chosen people from among whom came our own savior, Jesus Christ. An additional factor, especially in the political arena, is the powerful influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is exercising its legitimate goal of explaining the current policies of Israel's government and arousing maximum support in our country. There are no significant countervailing voices."
In Carter’s op-ed to the Los Angeles Times on December 8, 2006 he wrote,
"For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts."
As Findley wrote in Liberating America From Israel,
“The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning.”
Herein lies a disturbing explanation for the reprehensible and unconstitutional treatment that American citizens such as Irwin Schiff and Dick Simkanin (and lawyers such as Becraft and Jeff Dickstein) have received in criminal tax trials. The Lobby’s heavy-handed demonizing and intimidation of people for attempting to intelligently question the origin and operation of the federal income tax system may well be going beyond the ADL’s website, reaching into the halls of justice.
We take issue with Jimmy Carter’s pessimistic assertion that there are no countervailing voices (to counteract the Lobby’s cacophony). Carter is wrong on this. There are countervailing voices that speak in harmony, that are far more powerful and carry far more weight in the day-to-day affairs of the United States than does the Lobby or any other special interest.
One need only ponder the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to discover these countervailing voices. Listen and you will hear a harmony of the most powerful voices of all mankind, those of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, John and Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin and the rest of the Founding Fathers. In your hearts, you will feel the force of Liberty.
We are not to be intimidated by the Lobby. We are to be inspired by our Founding Documents and their underlying essential principles. Each generation is on call to defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The battle continues next week in Alexandria Virginia at GML 2007.
Unless the people we have invited to speak at the conference (representatives from the Israel Lobby and the Governments of Israel and the United States, and various scholars), or anyone else can effectively deny the facts in Carter’s book and the Paper by Mearsheimer and Walt, then we, as responsible citizens of America have a duty to defend the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution by petitioning the U.S. Government to suspend all aid to Israel at least until Israel ends is occupation of Arab land unlawfully seized in 1967.
If ending aid to Israel means an end to the Police State policies and programs that have been imposed on the People of America since 9-11, and that have resulted in a loss of Freedom, then that is what must be done.
Not that anyone would ask for our opinion regarding a lasting solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, but if they did we would suggest a TWO-STATE, ONE-CONSTITUTION solution, with that Constitution protecting individual Rights, Equal Protection under the Law and Due Process for all.
It may be that a little “extremism” is just what the doctor ordered.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-03-22.htm
Idaho Passes Anti-NAU/SPP Resolution!
Idaho Becomes First State to Pass Anti-NAU/SPP Resolution!
Today the Idaho Senate passed, by a vote of 24 to 7, HJM005, a resolution “Stating findings of the Legislature and urging Congress to use all efforts, energies and diligence to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America or any other bilateral or multilateral activity that seeks to advance, authorize, fund or in any way promote the creation of any structure to create any form of North American Union.”
Since the Idaho House had already adopted HJM005 by voice vote on March 12, today’s Senate vote means that Idaho is the first state to pass an anti-NAU/SPP resolution in both houses.
Congratulations to the members of The John Birch Society in Idaho for making passage of the anti-NAU resolution possible.
At least 13 other states have already introduced resolutions against the North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership. Click here for more information about the North American Union, including a copy of a model NAU resolution for state legislatures.
Today the Idaho Senate passed, by a vote of 24 to 7, HJM005, a resolution “Stating findings of the Legislature and urging Congress to use all efforts, energies and diligence to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America or any other bilateral or multilateral activity that seeks to advance, authorize, fund or in any way promote the creation of any structure to create any form of North American Union.”
Since the Idaho House had already adopted HJM005 by voice vote on March 12, today’s Senate vote means that Idaho is the first state to pass an anti-NAU/SPP resolution in both houses.
Congratulations to the members of The John Birch Society in Idaho for making passage of the anti-NAU resolution possible.
At least 13 other states have already introduced resolutions against the North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership. Click here for more information about the North American Union, including a copy of a model NAU resolution for state legislatures.
Muffled voices by Richard Lea
Guardian Unlimited
Muffled voices
by Richard Lea
This year, the Committee to Protect Journalists will present one of its International Press Freedom Awards to Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist and poet currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for "leaking state secrets abroad". Richard Lea looks at his work, and the charges that were brought against him.
The Chinese journalist and poet Shi Tao will not be in New York on Tuesday November 22 to collect his Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Press Freedom Award - he is serving a 10-year prison sentence with forced labour in Chishan Prison, Yuanjiang City.
"He was detained at his house at the end of November 2004", says the Amnesty campaigner Anu Kultalahti. "In December, he was formally arrested on charges of illegally revealing state secrets abroad, and sentenced in April 2005 to 10 years' imprisonment."
The charges brought against Shi Tao relate to emails that he sent to websites based outside China, containing a memo sent to journalists by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) concerning the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
"He posted an internal CCP note about the Tiananmen crackdown to some overseas websites," explains Kultalahti. "It was a note that was circulated to journalists, basically warning them about possible unrest during the anniversary period and telling them how to report such unrest if it occurred."
The memo offered an analysis of the current situation, noting that as 2004 was the 15th anniversary of the "June Fourth Event" some of the "overseas pro-democratic elements" were "more active", propagating "various harmful information" on the internet, and "making use of religion and other ways [printings, internet] to attract the youths". It went on to list seven "safeguard measures", and five "current tasks to be promoted vigorously", including "upholding the correct theories and duty consciousness", "enhancing conscientiously the intelligence work and controlling every kind of activities and situations" and "persisting the correct guidance of public opinions".
According to Kultalahti, the main evidence provided against Shi Tao came not from inside China, but from the global internet service provider, Yahoo. In its defence, Yahoo claims that it was only following local legislation. When quizzed about the case in China earlier this year Yahoo's co-founder Jerry Yang said that the company was never informed by the authorities of the reasons why they were requesting the firm to provide information. "To be doing business in China, or anywhere else in the world, we have to comply with local law," he said.
Kultalahti offers further explanation. "Every company has to sign a public pledge on self-discipline for the internet industry," she says. "In effect it means that they agree to the Chinese system of censorship and control. "There has also been some debate as to whether Yahoo was legally bound to provide such information to the authorities, since they are based in Hong Kong, which has a separate legal system from mainland China. We are very disturbed by Yahoo providing information to the Chinese authorities which was used to convict Shi Tao."
Shi was born in 1968 in Yanchi City, north-west China. Though perhaps better known as a journalist, he is also a widely published poet; he began writing poetry as a teenager, founding the Zhuxi Literary Society while still at school. He was active in university poetry societies while studying politics at East China Normal University, where he founded the urban poetry group Woting and served on the board of the Shanghai University Associations of Poets. He was influenced by Shanghai's City Poetry group and began publishing poems in well-respected state-run literary journals with a national readership, such as Shanghai Wenxue and Mengya. In 1989 he took part in the wave of student demonstrations that ended in the Tiananmen Square massacre.
After graduating in 1991, Shi worked for a year as a teacher in Xi-An City, before taking the first of many jobs in journalism. He went on to work for a succession of titles in Xi-an, Taiyuan and Changsha as reporter, editor and director.
Meanwhile, he has published several collections of poetry, including 'Borders of Heaven', which was published by Shanxi People's Publishing House in 2002. However, Shi's work has never been featured in a major anthology. Chip Rolley of Sydney PEN suggests that after he left university his poetry may have taken a back seat as he concentrated on his journalism. Publication in Shanghai Wenxue and Mengya when he was only 22 suggests "early recognition", he says, but "it's less clear to me what has happened since."
"I wouldn't say Shi Tao is particularly pioneering in his poetry," says one of his translators at SOAS, Heather Inwood, "although it has been said that he is one of very few contemporary poets who really 'worries about the country and its people' in his writings. His involvement in pro-democracy and freedom of speech movements seems to be reflected in his poetry", she says. Many of his poems are "full of anger, death, blackness, blood and violence."
"I imagine his essays and reportage on overseas pro-democracy websites may have affected the development of any reputation on the mainland," says Rolley. "I suspect politics would have got in the way."
Now, however, Shi may never find out if he was destined for poetic greatness. His release of the CCP memo has now brought both his careers to a halt. He is not allowed to write anything while in prison, except for letters to his family.
"He is kept in a prison on a small island where most of the prisoners are serving long sentences," says Kultalahti, "and is forced to do labour processing jewels."
At the time of his arrest "he had some health problems," she says, "a heart condition and a chronic ulcer. These have worsened."
His family is able to visit him twice a month. His mother, Gao Qinsheng, says that apart from being unable to write he is doing "OK". She had hoped to attend the CPJ award ceremony herself. She has been unable to obtain a passport.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
Muffled voices
by Richard Lea
This year, the Committee to Protect Journalists will present one of its International Press Freedom Awards to Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist and poet currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for "leaking state secrets abroad". Richard Lea looks at his work, and the charges that were brought against him.
The Chinese journalist and poet Shi Tao will not be in New York on Tuesday November 22 to collect his Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Press Freedom Award - he is serving a 10-year prison sentence with forced labour in Chishan Prison, Yuanjiang City.
"He was detained at his house at the end of November 2004", says the Amnesty campaigner Anu Kultalahti. "In December, he was formally arrested on charges of illegally revealing state secrets abroad, and sentenced in April 2005 to 10 years' imprisonment."
The charges brought against Shi Tao relate to emails that he sent to websites based outside China, containing a memo sent to journalists by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) concerning the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
"He posted an internal CCP note about the Tiananmen crackdown to some overseas websites," explains Kultalahti. "It was a note that was circulated to journalists, basically warning them about possible unrest during the anniversary period and telling them how to report such unrest if it occurred."
The memo offered an analysis of the current situation, noting that as 2004 was the 15th anniversary of the "June Fourth Event" some of the "overseas pro-democratic elements" were "more active", propagating "various harmful information" on the internet, and "making use of religion and other ways [printings, internet] to attract the youths". It went on to list seven "safeguard measures", and five "current tasks to be promoted vigorously", including "upholding the correct theories and duty consciousness", "enhancing conscientiously the intelligence work and controlling every kind of activities and situations" and "persisting the correct guidance of public opinions".
According to Kultalahti, the main evidence provided against Shi Tao came not from inside China, but from the global internet service provider, Yahoo. In its defence, Yahoo claims that it was only following local legislation. When quizzed about the case in China earlier this year Yahoo's co-founder Jerry Yang said that the company was never informed by the authorities of the reasons why they were requesting the firm to provide information. "To be doing business in China, or anywhere else in the world, we have to comply with local law," he said.
Kultalahti offers further explanation. "Every company has to sign a public pledge on self-discipline for the internet industry," she says. "In effect it means that they agree to the Chinese system of censorship and control. "There has also been some debate as to whether Yahoo was legally bound to provide such information to the authorities, since they are based in Hong Kong, which has a separate legal system from mainland China. We are very disturbed by Yahoo providing information to the Chinese authorities which was used to convict Shi Tao."
Shi was born in 1968 in Yanchi City, north-west China. Though perhaps better known as a journalist, he is also a widely published poet; he began writing poetry as a teenager, founding the Zhuxi Literary Society while still at school. He was active in university poetry societies while studying politics at East China Normal University, where he founded the urban poetry group Woting and served on the board of the Shanghai University Associations of Poets. He was influenced by Shanghai's City Poetry group and began publishing poems in well-respected state-run literary journals with a national readership, such as Shanghai Wenxue and Mengya. In 1989 he took part in the wave of student demonstrations that ended in the Tiananmen Square massacre.
After graduating in 1991, Shi worked for a year as a teacher in Xi-An City, before taking the first of many jobs in journalism. He went on to work for a succession of titles in Xi-an, Taiyuan and Changsha as reporter, editor and director.
Meanwhile, he has published several collections of poetry, including 'Borders of Heaven', which was published by Shanxi People's Publishing House in 2002. However, Shi's work has never been featured in a major anthology. Chip Rolley of Sydney PEN suggests that after he left university his poetry may have taken a back seat as he concentrated on his journalism. Publication in Shanghai Wenxue and Mengya when he was only 22 suggests "early recognition", he says, but "it's less clear to me what has happened since."
"I wouldn't say Shi Tao is particularly pioneering in his poetry," says one of his translators at SOAS, Heather Inwood, "although it has been said that he is one of very few contemporary poets who really 'worries about the country and its people' in his writings. His involvement in pro-democracy and freedom of speech movements seems to be reflected in his poetry", she says. Many of his poems are "full of anger, death, blackness, blood and violence."
"I imagine his essays and reportage on overseas pro-democracy websites may have affected the development of any reputation on the mainland," says Rolley. "I suspect politics would have got in the way."
Now, however, Shi may never find out if he was destined for poetic greatness. His release of the CCP memo has now brought both his careers to a halt. He is not allowed to write anything while in prison, except for letters to his family.
"He is kept in a prison on a small island where most of the prisoners are serving long sentences," says Kultalahti, "and is forced to do labour processing jewels."
At the time of his arrest "he had some health problems," she says, "a heart condition and a chronic ulcer. These have worsened."
His family is able to visit him twice a month. His mother, Gao Qinsheng, says that apart from being unable to write he is doing "OK". She had hoped to attend the CPJ award ceremony herself. She has been unable to obtain a passport.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
