The politics of greed is what keeps this world wrapped in corruption. If you want to stick around for a while longer, I suggest you educate yourself and try to do something constructive to help save what little good, honesty, and trust we have left.

A motto for us old vets: Take one with you!

Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.

Go to Home

Highest Go To numbers are the latest Links of all coruption pages.


Go to 12798
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=6954
The NWO Always Knew We Would Resist
02-28-2008
Old Thinker News
Daniel Taylor

Advancing globalization and trends to world governance have become regular headlines throughout the world. As these trends continue, resistance to losses of sovereignty and globalization are increasing. This is coming as little surprise to the planners who have foreseen the rise of world government, and actively participated in its formation.

Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted in his book, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, that the formation of the world system would require "sacrifices" on part of Americans that will harm America's favorable position in the world. Brzezinski states,

"The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty... In the economic-technological field, some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position."

There is little doubt that Brzezinski knew exactly what kind of response this action would evoke from patriotic Americans. At the moment we are witnessing America's favorable economic position being drastically eroded as the dollar continues its freefall, with former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's endorsement.

The great dream of world governance comes at a price. Ancient ideas of national sovereignty have no place in the modern era. Sacrifices must be made.

What reactions do the global planners expect?

James P. Muldoon, Jr., Senior Fellow of the Center for Global Change and Governance at Rutgers University, writes in The Architecture of Global Governance that the transition to the international system will emerge out of 'chaos',

"For some, the disarray of traditional relationships in international affairs indicates a dangerous deterioration of the international order and portends collapse of the system into chaos or anarchy. Others consider the turbulence of the 1990s as part of the process of evolution, an inevitable consequence of the transformation of the international system into a global system. In some respects, both are right. The international order has indeed deteriorated into 'disorder' in large measure, but there is growing evidence that a global system is emerging out of this 'chaos.'"

H.G. Wells, a strong proponent of a planned world state, wrote in The New World Order in 1940,

"Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires from pukka sahibs to petty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."

H.G. Wells again writes in The Open Conspiracy, an earlier book written in 1928,

"The establishment of the world community will surely exact a price - and who can tell what that price may be? - in toil, suffering, and blood."

While speaking at a conference hosted by AKbank in Istanbul Turkey on May 31, 2007, just prior to the scheduled Bilderberg meeting, Henry Kissinger gave a speech in which he stated,

"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..."

Government trends analysts have taken into consideration the expanding world system and have based predictions on its impact on social, political, and economic conditions. A December 2000 CIA report titled "Global Trends 2015" outlines possible outcomes of globalization and worldwide integration. The report states,

"Scenario Two: Pernicious Globalization Global elites thrive, but the majority of the world’s population fails to benefit from globalization... migration becomes a major source of interstate tension... Internal conflicts increase, fueled by frustrated expectations, inequities, and heightened communal tensions..."

A report released from the U.K. Ministry of Defense, "DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036", states that globalization and the effective erasing of borders in an international system will cause upheaval.

"Economic globalization and indiscriminate migration may lead to levels of international integration that effectively bring interstate warfare to an end; however, it will also result in communities of interest at every level of society that transcend national boundaries and could resort to the use of violence."

It is not my position to advocate violent actions as a solution, as this would only worsen our situation. What can be seen from the above statements is that violence and turmoil is expected by globalist planners and analysts during the "transition" period that will carry us into the New World Order.



Go to 12797
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=6995
Police Reject Candidate For Being Too Smart
02-29-2008
Ananova

A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: “This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.



Go to 12796
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=6998
Vets Break Silence On War Crimes
02-29-2008
AntiWar

US veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are planning to descend on Washington from Mar. 13-16 to testify about war crimes they committed or personally witnessed in those countries.

"The war in Iraq is not covered to its potential because of how dangerous it is for reporters to cover it," said Liam Madden, a former Marine and member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. "That's left a lot of misconceptions in the minds of the American public about what the true nature of military occupation looks like."

Iraq Veterans Against the War argues that well-publicized incidents of US brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of an entire family of Iraqis in the town of Haditha are not the isolated incidents perpetrated by "a few bad apples," as many politicians and military leaders have claimed. They are part of a pattern, the group says, of "an increasingly bloody occupation."

"The problem that we face in Iraq is that policymakers in leadership have set a precedent of lawlessness where we don't abide by the rule of law, we don't respect international treaties, so when that atmosphere exists it lends itself to criminal activity," argues former US Army Sergeant Logan Laituri, who served a tour in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 before being discharged as a conscientious objector.

Laituri told IPS that precedent of lawlessness makes itself felt in the rules of engagement handed down by commanders to soldiers on the front lines. When he was stationed in Samarra, for example, he said one of his fellow soldiers shot an unarmed man while he walked down the street.

"The problem is that that soldier was not committing a crime as you might call it because the rules of engagement were very clear that no one was supposed to be walking down the street," he said. "But I have a problem with that. You can't tell a family to leave everything they know so you can bomb the sh*t out of their house or their city. So while he definitely has protection under the law, I don't think that legitimates that type of violence."

Iraq Veterans Against the War is calling the gathering "Winter Soldier," after a quote from the US revolutionary Thomas Paine, who wrote in 1776: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Organizers say video and photographic evidence will also be presented, and the testimony and panels will be broadcast live on Satellite TV and streaming video on ivaw.org.

Winter Soldier is modeled on a similar event held by Vietnam Veterans 37 years ago.

In 1971, over 100 members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with fellow citizens. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions.

"Initially even the My Lai massacre was denied," notes Gerald Nicosia, whose book Home to War provides the most exhaustive history of the Vietnam veterans' movement.

"The US military has traditionally denied these accusations based on the fact that 'this is a crazy soldier' or 'this is a malcontent' – that you can't trust this person. And that is the reason that Vietnam Veterans Against the War did this unified presentation in Detroit in 1971."

"They brought together their bona fides and wore their medals and showed it was more than one or two or three malcontents. It was medal-winning, honored soldiers – veterans in a group verifying what each other said to try to convince people that these charges cannot be denied. That people are doing these things as a matter of policy."

Nicosia says the 1971 Winter Soldier was roundly ignored by the mainstream media, but that it made an indelible imprint on those who were there.

Among those in attendance was 27-year-old Navy Lieutenant John Kerry, who had served on a Swift Boat in Vietnam. Three months after the hearings, Nicosia notes, Kerry took his case to Congress and spoke before a jammed Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Television cameras lined the walls, and veterans packed the seats.

"Many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia," Kerry told the committee, describing the events of the Winter Soldier gathering.

"It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit – the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do."

In one of the most famous antiwar speeches of the era, Kerry concluded: "Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be – and these are his words – 'the first president to lose a war.' We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Nicosia says US citizens and veterans find themselves in a similar situation today.

"The majority of the American people are very dissatisfied with the Iraq war now and would be happy to get out of it. But Americans are bred deep into their psyches to think of America as a good country and, I think, much harder than just the hurdle of getting troops out of Iraq is to get Americans to realize the terrible things we do in the name of the United States."



Go to 12795
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7001
ATF Seizes Hundreds Of Guns From Business
02-29-2008
KTVK

GILBERT -- High-powered rifles and semi-automatic weapons were part of the hundreds of weapons seized after the ATF served a search warrant at Cavalry Arms, a licensed gun manufacturer in Gilbert.

Authorities have only said that Cavalry Arms is accused of violating federal firearms laws. Reports reveal that Cavalry Arms does most of its business online, and neighbors in the area claim seeing little traffic in or out of the business. But neighbors also said they were surprised by the actions, and described Cavalry Arms as a 'heads-up' business that didn't draw any suspicion in their opinion.

The ATF did not go into any details as to exactly what firearms laws had been broken, only that they were processing and seizing all of the weapons at the Gilbert gun manufacturer.

The ATF directed future inquiries to the US Attorney's office, whom said they wouldn't comment on an on-going investigation.

PREVIOUS REPORT:

The A.T.F. has seized hundreds of weapons after serving a search warrant at a Gilbert gun store. Right now it is not known why the ATF served the search warrant or why the guns were seized.

3TV has a crew on the scene and will report more details shortly.



Go to 12794
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8139
Secret hand that rocks Iran's cradle

Mehdi Kalaji – NST Online Saturday March 1, 2008

WITH the release of America's National Intelligence Estimate, according to which Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons programme, the prospect of military confrontation with the Bush administration dimmed. But months later, it is clear that the danger is not past, because Iran has not renounced the production of nuclear weapons, which its enriched uranium could eventually be used to fuel.

All parties need to find a formula to resolve the issue before it again threatens to erupt into conflict. Western diplomacy in recent years has focused on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as the key to resolving the crisis. But this approach is a blind alley.

Let us recall the fate of Ahmedinejad's two immediate predecessors. Muhammad Khatami (1997-2005) tried to implement dramatic political reform, while Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-97) tried to open the Iranian economy to the West. Both failed, because Iran's presidents do not run the country. A solution to the nuclear dilemma - or any other problem in Iran's foreign relations - is in the hands of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Among his responsibilities, Khamenei serves as commander-in-chief of the military, controls the intelligence services and appoints directors of the national media. His appointees effectively control most ministries and Iran's major cities.

In diplomacy, Khamenei tends to operate in a clever but recognisable fashion. He sends different diplomats into negotiations with contradictory instructions. Each claims to be acting with the supreme leader's full authority, but ultimately are unable to make commitments because they have little idea of what Khamenei wants to do. After a time, they are removed and a new set of representatives is despatched.

In order to dominate decision-making, Khamenei prefers weak presidents. Ahmedinejad is no different. His political base has faded, owing to Iran's deepening economic crisis, which has been intensified by the conflict with the West over the nuclear issue. His support in the parliamentary election next March seems particularly weak, which will no doubt please Western observers. But the election results will not matter: parliament, too, has little influence over Iran's foreign policy.

Some Western diplomats recognise the supreme leader's role. In practice, however, Western diplomacy tends to ignore Khamenei, who sabotages any effort to get around him as the final arbiter of Iranian policy. This might partly explain why Khamenei has been mistrustful of negotiations with the West. Westerners don't seem to understand who is in charge. Indeed, some analysts argue that former President Bill Clinton's efforts to achieve a breakthrough with Iran failed because they were addressed to Iran's presidents.

The West should learn from the example of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who did not travel to Iran until he was allowed a direct meeting with Khamenei, during which Putin is reported to have made a proposal to end the nuclear stand-off. There has been no answer yet, though there does seem to be some recent movement between Russia and Iran on the provision of nuclear fuel for Iran's controversial reactors.

To be sure, Khamenei is reluctant to meet non-Muslim foreign leaders. But that shouldn't stop the West from reaching out to him directly or pressing him to publicly appoint the representatives who negotiate with the West.

One American politician who understands how to work with the Iranian power structure is former Congressman Lee Hamilton, now head of the Woodrow Wilson Centre. When Wilson Centre researcher Haleh Esfandiari was arrested in Iran, Hamilton wrote to Khamenei, pleading for her release on humanitarian grounds. Khamenei responded - reportedly the first time he answered an American - and Esfandiari was released in a matter of days.

Khamenei would be hard-pressed to ignore a direct invitation from the US to negotiate on Iran's most vital concerns. His clear priority is the Islamic republic's survival, not the fate of particular Iranian politicians. While Ahmedinejad's apocalyptic vision makes it difficult for Westerners to deal with him, Khamenei does not want to stumble into a military confrontation with the West, which would destabilise Iran and possibly lead to the regime's downfall.

To resolve outstanding issues with Iran, the West should be dealing with the only person powerful enough to make deals and deliver concessions. That person is Khamenei, not Ahmedinejad.


Mehdi Khalaji, who studied for 14 years in seminaries in Qom, Iran, is a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy.
www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Columns/2173804/Article/index_html



Go to 12793
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_amazin_080228_the_question_of_forb.htm
February 29, 2008 at 08:29:25
The Question of Forbidden Questions
by amazin Page 1 of 2 page(s)

We note now and then in these very pages mention that a journalist has dared ask about some such subject as the deportation of ‘the dancing Israelis’, or of Dov Zakheim’s implication in ‘the 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon defense funds’, only to have been told that such questions are ‘forbidden’, otherwise meeting a persistent hail of flak, which only indicates the same thing and amounts to the same answer.

But ‘forbidden’, are they now? ‘Forbidden’, eh? Ultimately by whom? we may legitimately wonder. And does this merely pique your curiosity, or does the ground shake for you so you realize it is something altogether more significant?


Do the forbidders think we are children and will accept the rebuke and mind our own business? – Ah, the reporters’ jobs were on the line, were they? But this is our business, we are not reporters, and we don’t have to worry about what some puffed-up pusillanimous jerks may fear they might not get away with.

No, it is exactly such questions to which we require either answers or the slammer and the block for those who are shy about offering them.

You see, you public have little or no idea what is going on. I will show you what I mean.

I hark back to one single such instance from personal experience. The case concerned a mere thirty-one thousand million US dollars – Sure, not much in these days of sliding values, but this was twenty-five or so years ago, when 31 b. USD was still a tidy sum. A certain ‘President’, now gratifyingly dead, was paid two hundred million to accept the deal, and I was told two years later by no less than a prince that fifty-two percent of the total was still in offshore banks, earning between one and two billion USD per year in interest for the ‘pres’, a philandering Socialist, and his buddy, a communist with later a well-deserved reputation for arrogance to journalists, which he then could easily afford. That, please remember, was just a single case, and they could do a case per week if they wished, with ‘their’ unsuspecting populations having to repay it all, in full, via taxes of all kinds, inflation, ever more stringent working conditions, unemployment and hardship. Yes, this is the unsuspected ugly reality of 'international finance', unfortunately in its daily relevance to all our countries.

The politician’s politics or other beliefs are merely incidental, of course. All men at that level are just frail mortal integers who will do anything asked of them against their captive populations if it means them getting . . . that rich! Well now, that may be ‘politics’ for you, but in my book it is sheer roguery, with a whole slice of each nation’s society engaged in keeping such matters hush-hush on the basis of ‘a national secret’. Sure. Understandably.

I remember a colleague in the case - they were all cheated of commission and wondering what to do about it - wailing publicly, “We will all be killed! We will all be killed!” Another colleague in the case was indeed assassinated, but I think it was for some other ‘offense’, as all those involved were criminals at heart for those amounts.

But you see, when it gets to the matter of who in our government accepts what, and ultimately from whom, these are the questions we require to be answered immediately and without prevarication. We want to know from the corrupt bribed and bribers exactly who is doing what, because ultimately our lives and those of our children depend on receiving the right answers, and now!

Well, some of these answers we know already, don’t we?

The dancing Israelis, with evidence of explosives in their van and failed lie-detector tests, who later admitted that they had come, in good time and so – from their own lips – with foreknowledge of what was to eventuate, ‘to record the event’ – these merry dancers were deported without trial to ‘their homeland’ by none other than Michael Chertoff. It is a measure of ‘our leaders'’ contempt for us that this dubious individual is now our dual-nationality ‘Head of Homeland Security’. And he squeaks that he mistrusts the internet? Yes, he should. We can tell the truth about him and his accomplices. – 'Homeland' and 'Security', eh? How rich!

The missing 2.3 trillion Pentagon money – that is more than our entire defense budget for the last fifteen or twenty years – went missing under the watchful eye of another devout dual-nationalist, Dov Zakheim, and our friendly war-mongering ghoul Rumsfeld quipped that DZ ‘has a handle on it, and it’s a long handle,’ the very day before ‘the missle’, as Rumsfeld himself said, hit the exact spot where the Navy Intelligence Department was investigating just that missing 2.3 t. USD – A little too convenient, perhaps? What says our Navy to that and to their dead?

We also now know that tower 7 fell under the gentle persuasion of thermate, which cannot be installed in just a few hours - Yes, as did 1 and 2. A certain someone had paid out a few million and arranged all this to try to collect 7.3 b. And even though his daughter said that when he heard his own employees had died – been murdered – ‘the light went from his eyes’ – aaaahhh, happily, yes, like the others, he is still walking around free and . . . Rich! – Well, moneyed: that is a little different, isn’t it?

But, though we know these answers, we don’t know them all. I have asked and researched without result apart from ‘There is no information,’ for such things as these –

I require a detailed report of all the country-loans that have been made to all the countries of the world for the last one hundred and fifty years, whether in funds or in loan-guarantees - which in the right hands are as good as cash. I want to know the origin of this money in each case, both its nominal figure and its emitted figure, a detailed account of any 'retentions' and the subsequent onward transfers of all amounts greater than one thousand dollars from its initial transfer for a year and a day thenceforward, plus an account of its total repayment, to whom, and what then happened to it.

I want a list of all ‘the foundations’ in the world, both taxed and tax-free, an examination of their contents and what has been the use of all this ninety percent of all the world’s money ever-fulminating incestuously therein.



Go to 12792
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN2920801820080229
Billions of dollars of sales slam muni bonds
Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:28pm EST Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Tender option bond programs on Friday were selling "multiple billions" of dollars of U.S. municipal bonds, a money manager said, which is accelerating a market slide that experts call the worst in decades.

Prices have dropped for the past 12 days, partly due to the problems borrowers and investors are having with short-term municipal markets.

Two of these markets, auction rate and variable demand note obligations, have frozen because investors fear some bond insurers that backed this debt are no longer credit-worthy as a result of their bad bets on subprime mortgage investments.

These dislocations have hurt tender option bond trusts, which buy long-term muni bonds and finance them by selling floating notes. But now they are losing money -- or are about to -- because their borrowing costs have skyrocketed.

At the same time, the value of their long-term municipal bonds has plunged.

"Tender option bond selling is in the multiple billions," said Gary Pollack, a managing director at Deutsche Bank Private Wealth Management. Tender option bond programs are created by both hedge funds and dealers, and they typically are highly leveraged, which intensifies their influence on the market.

Dealers have been struggling to cope with the flood of supplies from these trusts because they must save their cash.

Banks and dealers have turned into cash-hoarders because they face billion-dollar write-downs from the sinking subprime sector and need to dress up their balance sheets because they are so close to end of the financial quarter.

And municipal bond issuers, from states to cities to agencies, are abandoning short-term muni markets and transforming these issues into long-term debt. This source of new supply -- expected to hit soon -- also is hurting prices.

(Reporting by Joan Gralla; Editing by Andrea Ricci)



Go to 12791
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23286149-2703%2C00.html
Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'
Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent | February 28, 2008
THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.

Australia also faced a real bill much greater than the $2.2billion in military spending reported last week by Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, Professor Stiglitz said, pointing to higher oil prices and other indirect costs of the wars.

Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.

The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.

Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further $US500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the world.

The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world, he said.

Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered, he said.

The public had been encouraged by the White House to ignore the costs of the war because of the belief that the war would somehow pay for itself or be paid for by Iraqi oil or US allies.

"When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired.

"(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion.

"Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that."

Five years after the war, the US was still spending about $US50billion every three months on direct military costs, he said.

Professor Stiglitz and another Clinton administration economist, Linda Bilmes, have produced a book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, pulling together their research on the true cost of the war, which does not include the cost to Iraq.

One of the greatest discrepancies is that the official figures do not include the long-term healthcare and social benefits for injured servicemen, who are surviving previously fatal attacks because of improved body armour.

"The ratio of injuries to fatalities in a normal war is 2:1. In this war they admitted to 7:1 but a true number is (something) like 15:1."

Some 100,000 servicemen have been diagnosed with serious psychological problems and the soldiers doing the most tours of duty have not yet returned.

Professor Stiglitz attributed to the Iraq war $US5-$US10 of the almost $US80-a-barrel increase in oil prices since the start of the war, adding that it would have been reasonable to attribute more than $US35 of that rise to the war.

He said the British bill for its role in the war was about 20 times the pound stg. 1billion ($2.1 billion) that former prime minister Tony Blair estimated before the war.

The British Government was yesterday ordered to release details of its planning for the war, when the country's Information Commissioner backed a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of two cabinet meetings in the days before the war.

Commissioner Richard Thomas said that because of the importance of the decision to go to war, the public interest in disclosing the minutes outweighed the public interest in withholding the information.



Go to 12790
http://www.rense.com/general56/over61.htm
The Overthrow Of The
American Republic - Part 61
Is A Sneak Attack "Okay" ?
By Sherman H. Skolnick
7-31-4

The Establishment historians and others have a way of explaining great tragic events:

[1] They attribute it to an unrelated series of circumstances.

[2] They blame the happening on supposedly known national, international culprits or "enemies".

[3] In setting forth the elite's version of what occurred, they seek to demonize or finger some religious, racial, ethnic, or other supposedly identifiable group, as the perpetrators or "enemy".

[4] The "powers that be", the Ruling Class---plainly, THEM---use the occurrence as an excuse to go to war or to retaliate in some way. In the process, are hounded or actually rounded up and put in enclosures or "concentration camps", supposed long-known sympathizers or secret domestic resident accomplices of these now-fingered "enemies".

BUT, are there geopolitical reasons and rationales not quickly discussed by the plutocrats' commentators and journalists, and other such mouthpieces?

AND, how many years if not decades must pass, before there is an open discussion, that the Establishment had an excuse, for example, to allow a supposed "sneak attack" on the Nation? Simply put, those who make national and international policy rulings without our consent, would they try to soon after the happening, ask us to consider THEIR reasons for knowing in advance, but allowing the tragedy to occur anyway?

Take Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, as an example.
A newspaper in Hawaii, then a U.S. colony or possession, printed a headline, a week before December 7, 1941, that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent. In fact, U.S. General Billy Mitchell pointed out 18 years before, that Pearl Harbor was the target of a likely air attack. The General was punished by a Courts Martial for upsetting the other Military brass with Mitchell pointing out such things in emphasizing air power over sea power.

[A copy of the Hawaiian newspaper front page was published about a decade or so ago by a populist paper now defunct, "The Spotlight". The staff of that publication now publish "American Free Press", Washington, D.C.]

General Billy Mitchell was punished for his air power predictions.
[See the book "A Question of Loyalty: General Billy Mitchell and the Court Martial That Gripped the Nation" by Douglas C. Waller.]

Prior to December 7, 1941, the Roosevelt White House ordered the bulk of the U.S. fleet of Battleships and such, berthed at Pearl Harbor, to be located IN THE CENTER OF THE HARBOR where they made a good air power target. Excuse? Supposedly to save them from possible on-land saboteurs. The fleet of Aircraft Carriers, however, was ordered out to sea by the prior-knowledge of the impending airplane attack by Japan.

A warning of sorts was sent by the White House to the Pearl Harbor commanders BY THE SLOWEST MEANS POSSIBLE, arriving AFTER the attack by Japan was already in progress. The commanders were falsely blamed and later removed and defamed.
[Numerous books on the treason in permitting the attack on Pearl Harbor. See, for example list at www.amazon.com and for Barnes & Noble, www.bn.com ]

Was there an explanation, a rationale, that the highest level of the U.S. Government might have historically defended? That is, a geopolitical motive that the commonfolk of the U.S. were already too-poorly informed by the monopoly press to understand?

Despite the supposedly impregnable Maginot Line, France caved in to the Nazi armies. France was sold out by internal traitors, some called them the Gagliards, "the hooded ones". Great Britain was run by a pro-Hitler Monarchy. Just prior to the war breaking out in 1939, King Edward the 8th abdicated, 1936. The excuse? He wanted to marry a forbidden commoner who was herself one of the richest women ever, owning huge shipping combines. The actual excuse was that this couple were pro-Hitler. They became the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and ran the Bahamas during World War Two. They treasonously arranged for Nazi submarines to re-fuel right offshore the U.S. Many British and U.S. sailors and merchant marines lost their lives by this treachery. [In recent years, the History Channel did a two-hour never seen before pictorial documentary on the treason of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.]

The successor to King Edward the 8th, King George 6th (1936-1952) was himself pro-Hitler. (He was succeeded by Queen Elizabeth 2nd, herself pro-Nazi, being actually not from the House of Windsor, but from German royalty, the House of Hanover. Through her private enterprise, Coutts Bank London, she has a joint account for One Hundred Billion Dollars with the Pro-Nazi Bush Crime Family. See document www.cloakanddagger.ca )

During the war, Sir Anthony Blunt, art expert for the Monarchy, endeared himself to the Throne, by infiltrating behind Nazi lines to retrieve secret documents from a French castle that showed King George 6th was a Hitler-supporter. Although later identified as a dreaded "Communist agent", Blunt was never prosecuted.

Realizing that the U.S. was a sleeping giant industrial complex, with its own oil reserves and facilities, Nazi Germany did NOT want to attack the U.S., separated from Europe's war by an ocean not easily crossed in those years by airplanes. BUT, by 1941, England was about to be over-run by the German invading armies. Not giving a hoot for the British working people, the Brits had in the 1930s allowed their industrial works to get completely out of date and rusted out. Large numbers of the British were on "the dole", and not up to date on production methods.

England's purported leader, often a fallen down drunk, Winston Churchill, persuaded his more or less cousin President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that throwing away 3,000 American lives in permitting a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, would be "a small price to pay" to bring U.S. into the war to save England.

The behind-the-scenes justification for sacrificing, to start with, 3,000 American lives at Pearl Harbor, requires the understanding of those years. The Axis Powers consisted of Germany, Italy, and Japan. If any nation declared war on any one of these, then the others would declare war on that nation. So right after the U.S. declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941, Germany declared war on the U.S.

In simple terms, the supposedly "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, was to warrant the U.S. getting into the war against Nazi Germany that did not otherwise want to fight the industrial strongman, the U.S., easily mobilizing a large army from the U.S. unemployment that was over 14 per cent in 1941.

So, with the foregoing as an example, WAS THERE A "SNEAK ATTACK" by "ARABS" on the U.S. on September 11, 2001? Numerous facts are already available to question the version by the occupant and resident of the Oval Office, George W. Bush, a stooge and scapegoat for the British Monarchy.

AND, if not an actual "sneak attack", then was it a highest level somestic orchestrated event that supposedly could be explained, if not defended, by a faction in the Aristocracy? And would that rationale be acceptable by the naive, generally poorly-informed and brain-washed-educated American commonfolk?

Some background. Could apologists for the British Monarchy and the Jesuits justify the assassination, for their benefit if not upon their orders, of seven U.S. presidents from 1841 to 1963?

In summarized and simple terms, those that occupied the New World, were those of the Reformation, Protestants who fled backward Europe, centers of arrogant and arbitrary Monarchies and hidebound religious dictators.

From at least 1812 when they re-invaded the U.S. and in 1814 burned down the White House, and onward, the British Monarchy vowed to break up the United States of America, into provinces warring with each other, so as to be no financial competition to England. The inhabitants of the Continent that includes the U.S., to revert back to being subjects of the Crown, not citizens of the U.S. and the States.

In plain terms, a faction in the British/American aristocracy has the mindset that the sizeable population now in America, some 300 million people, cannot all be granted what is in the Bill of Rights. Scholars of American history often fail to point out that the Bill of Rights was reluctantly and grudgingly added to the U.S. Constitution because otherwise the commonfolk would not accept alone the basic government system set up by the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, seldom discussed is the apparent clinker in the U.S. Constitution. Article VI provides basically that the debts and monies owed and contracted by the Americans to the British and their Monarchy prior to the U.S. Constitution, are to be forever obligations of the U.S. Government. Presumably, at compound interest accumulating in perpetuity, that is, for ever a British noose around the American necks.

Consider some of the events leading up to 9-11.

==Published just before 9-11 was "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford. For the first time, the book showed the secret documents of Northwoods Project. A group of crazies in the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to create an excuse to invade Cuba in 1962 after the failure of the 1961 aborted CIA invasion at the Bay of Pigs. The plan was to bomb U.S. airplanes with onboard U.S. passengers. To bomb U.S. mainland facilities killing ordinary Americans. And similar violence, all to be falsely blamed on Fidel Castro, warranting an invasion of Cuba and a U.S. war against them.

How come the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press did not comment on this as a virtual blueprint for 9-11, thirty nine years after the plan was somehow stopped?

On the Thursday and Friday prior to the Tuesday of 9-11, speculators in the Chicago markets sold short, basically with futures and options. This done as to AMR, parent of American Airlines, and UAL, parent of United Airlines, both supposedly involved in the alleged hi-jacking by "Arabs" of planes of those two firms. This was done by certain factions on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and their step-sister, the Chicago Board Options Exchange.

Big dealers in these markets profited by billions of dollars.. AND, they have been in part shaken down by the Bush Crime Family. Result? The Federal regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission refuse to investigate the situation and refuse to divulge any documents of the same. Thus protected are the Bush Crime Family and their confederates.

On the Sunday before 9-11, in Moscow was an international monetary conference. Discussed was that the U.S. was about to go into the mode of financial collapse.

Prior to 9-11 various high-level persons had prior knowledge. Such as CIA dope mogul Warren Buffett who claims his fortune is based on his acute "savvy". He flew a group of Manhattan businesspeople that day of 9-11 for a party at the NORAD base, Offutt Air Force base, Nebraska, also a CIA mind-control experiment facility.

As the former head of the Secret Political Police and retaining links, Daddy Bush has been actually running the White House. He apparently told son George W., that something terrible was going to happen and that George W. was to "stay out of it. I am handling everything". So, Bush, Jr., upon hearing what happened to the twin towers in Manhattan, just sat in the schoolroom where he heard stories about a pet goat.

On 9-11, the joint defense commmand, NORAD, U.S./Canada, was apparently under the control of a Canadian commander who told his immediate assistants that U.S. airplanes are NOT authorized to do anything about the planes supposedly hi-jacked. So there was, in effect, a military stand-down.

In the view of some landlords, the twin towers of the World Trade Center were reaching the time when they would be considered unprofitable and obsolete and would have to be taken down. In the more ordinary way, that would cost 20 Billion Dollars and would require the area be evacuated.

Specializing in taking down old buildings with internal explosives has been Controlled Demolition, Inc. And naturally, they got the contract to clean up the debris when the twin towers mysteriously just pulverized. Later WTC Building 7, not hit by any "airplane", fell down the late afternoon of 9-11. The leasing boss, Larry Silverstein, much later on a TV program, said he gave the order "to pull" Building 7, a secret architecture term of having internal explosives put in key spots when they build a building so as to make it simple later to take it down, by imploding upon itself.

On my website, www.skolnicksreport.com is the story, posted about ten days after 9-11, that the Israelis through the French tried to inform the Bush White House of the impending "attack". Daddy Bush and George W., did not want to know.

Since a faction in the American/British aristocracy believes the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are unworkable and obsolete, they want to run the U.S. either as breakaway states warring with each other, or the iron-fist, Fascist-style. As mentioned in earlier stories in this series and Middle-Finger News, the faction wants a super secret police, Homeland Security, named after and patterned after the Gestapo.

To such faction in the Aristocracy, prior-knowledge and a fake "sneak attack" are justified. Since when are they concerned by starting their program by throwing away 3,000 Americans such as happened at 9-11 and at Pearl Harbor?

Other alternative websites contain many revealing details of prior-knowledge and Daddy Bush and Bush White House treason.

For a more full understanding of all this, you have to read the numerous prior parts of this series, as well as the parts of The Middle-Finger News.

Foreign entities by air power attacked at Pear Harbor. On the other hand, 9-11 was a domestic created event, with "Arabs" on a parallel track, espionage-style, but not actually participating except to be falsely blamed as patsies. "Arabs" operating with a cell phone from a cave ten thousand miles away did it? Nonsense. It was the most dastardly treason and deception in history by the highest level of the American government and the British/American aristocracy.b



Go to 12789
http://www.rense.com/general81/conce.htm
Almost 50,000 Concentration
Camps For EU Dissidents
By Michael James
On the Border of Switzerland
2-28-8

"The European Union is a 'monster' that must be destroyed, the sooner the better. Nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow." ­ Vladimir Bukovsky

"But fight we will, for we are English and we are brave, and their losses will unexpectedly great." - MJ


At a time when the European Union, having fully implemented every single provision of the Schengen Convention that allows for passport-free access from within and (in many cases) without the borders of this monstrously burgeoning Soviet Empire, having concomitantly no problem with permitting a near unrestricted flood of asylum seekers and economic migrants from Asia and North Africa, who arrive in vast numbers to seek welfare benefits and black market jobs, one is forced to consider a more sinister reason for the explosive growth of concentration camps that are now to be found in every corner of this despised amalgamation of formerly free and sovereign nations.

According to a December 30, 2007, report by the International Herald Tribune, 'Obscurity and confinement for migrants in Europe', reporter Caroline Brothers [somewhat misguidedly] reported on the reactivation of former Gulags and concentration camps throughout the length and breadth of Europe ostensibly to deal with unprecedented numbers of 'unwanted migrants', a claim that can only bring a smile of derision to the faces of long-suffering native Europeans who are now considering themselves an ethnic minority in their own homelands.

"The total known capacity for all the 'closed' EU camps is 30,871, according to [a] European Parliament study," Brothers reports. "When 'open' camps, to which 'asylum-seekers' [my parenthesis] are obliged to return at night, are included, the total rises to 40,979 .... Bilateral agreements, raising concerns about dubious alliances and human rights violations, have given rise to camps in peripheral states like Morocco, Tunisia, Ukraine, Libya and Turkey.

Governments are reluctant to admit to their existence, let alone permit entry to the camps; a reporter was denied access to centres in Greece and the Canary Islands of Spain; under the government of Silvio Berlusconi, Italy barred even the United Nations refugee agency from its centre on the Italian island of Lampedusa. The current prime minister, Romano Prodi, allowed the agency in.

The camps are concentrated along Europe's eastern and southern borders, while a large swathe of them runs east-west through Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Germany, according to Migreurop, a network of researchers and lawyers that has mapped the phenomenon." [1]

The article continues to describe the horrific conditions in which so-called 'illegal migrants' are held prior to deportation, and yet all of the enquiries I have lodged directly to members of the German Bundestag and its press department for the 'Ausschuss für Menschenrechte und humanitäre Hilfe' (Human Rights Committee) and a direct question to Jean-Claude Thebault, the Deputy Head of the European Commission, have lead me to believe that such detention centres either do not exist in the form they have been described or are intended for unspecified purposes, necessarily to be activated during what some MEPs have surreptitiously (and off-the record) described as an "unforeseen emergency".

Such denials, of course, are par for the course, yet I was unable to ascertain further, despite persistent questioning of a number of delegates I know personally at Strasbourg, the exact nature of any unspecified 'future emergency' that would presumably see the activation of 40,979 concentration camps, of which a large number are discreetly hidden from view in the British Isles, and which are mandated in their ordinances by stipulated detentions of up to 18 months.

There is a much discussed yet largely assumed unwritten protocol that informs discourse in the Federal Republic of Germany that deems it highly impolite, even bordering on illegality, to suggest that Germany ever exercise her democratic right to withdraw from the European Union. The acclaimed writer and journalist, Juergen Roth, even informed me, as far back as 1997, that political agitation to the effect of German secession from the EU could be met with imprisonment. In fact, there is no assumption about it. It is illegal in Germany to propose withdrawal from the EU.

The undemocratic and unratified Lisbon Treaty, far from abolishing the death penalty (which in any case I feel is appropriate for murderers, lying politicians, bank fraudsters, war criminals and rapists) makes specific provision for the death penalty to be exacted only against those exercising their democratic rights in rebelling against the European Union during a time of 'war or social emergency'. I wonder what sort of twist a corrupt Jewish lawyer such as Blair's former English-hating Attorney General Lord Goldsmith could spin on such a clause? Does not a burst water pipe constitute a social emergency? The exact wording states: "In a time of war or during a period in which a war is imminent, or in the face of social discontent or a revolt, which must be repressed, the death sentence is deemed fully legitimate." [2]

Something which the awfully trustworthy Gordon Brown, his predecessor the child-killer Tony Blair, or your Your Fucking Highness, the demonic, treasonous 'Queen' Elisabeth, singularly failed to tell you poor munchkins as they sniggered over the details of the illegal Lisbon Treaty. And munchkins you will always be in their world of 500,000-dollar luncheon speaking fees.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the entire House of Windsor represent the kind of traitors no civilised nation on earth would tolerate for more than five minutes. Fortunately for those of us who love our own people and, with patience and due forbearance plan ahead, a resurgent Republican and Independent England is still one of the finest producers of properly greased, eight-coiled hangman's rope.

Although the unlawful Lisbon Treaty, which received neither the assent of the people by means of a democratic referendum or a fair and open public debate in the Bilderberg and Zionist-controlled media that purports to inform European opinion, does technically allow England to withdraw from the nightmare socialist superstate into which we have been led like drugged animals on a leash, the penalties for such an act of defiance, so they say, would far outweigh any short-term benefits, for sanctions would be imposed by a triumvirate of EU, ASEAN and NAFTA power blocks, all of whom are now forming the basis of an integrated New World Order police state against which only the brave would dare to fight.

But fight we will, for we are English and we are brave, and their losses will unexpectedly great.

Vladimir Bukovsky, a man who personally witnessed the full horrors of what it is like to live as a dehumanised slave in a Godless, socialist system of humiliating and soul-destroying tyranny, recently warned the people of Europe that they are sleep-walking into a fascist nightmare greater than anything the world has ever experienced before.

In a frank and impassioned interview with the 'Brussels Journal', Bukovsky warned that the European Union is a "monster that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a full- fledged totalitarian state." [3]

As a harrowed survivor of some 12 years imprisonment, including his subjection to physical and psychological torture, Bukovsky finally gained access to the definitive blueprint that informed the founding basis of the European Union in its sinister and slippery transmogrification from the somewhat benign EEC into a politically correct socialist, quasi-fascistic dictatorship that will make the USSR look like a good-humoured cricket match on a dismal but promisingly sunny day.

Bukovsky, knowing that only the people of England have in them the fight to bring an end to the fascist monolith that threatens to destroy their freedoms and the happiness of their children and grandchildren, enjoins them to defy the traitors in Whitehall and Westminster by refusing to pay their taxes, saying, "Nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen."

"We are losing time," he continued. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time."

Bukovsky is right, and his message was kept out of the mainstream press. Not even the Americans, those who once held themselves up as the proudest of the free, published one word of his chilling warning. I wonder why?

I shall end on this note. I am an Englishman who left England in 1992, deeply disillusioned at the way in which my people, the salt of the earth and the finest race of men and women that has ever walked the face of this planet, was being sold into a slavery based upon salacious and hollow economic enticements and a perverse consumerist culture of cheap lies and instant gratification. I have watched from afar the moral and physical degeneration of a folk once destined to achieve everything that was theirs as of right, written in the stars from yonder the arrival of the first Celt on English soil.

I have seen my people despoiled by an influx of aliens who loathe and detest the essential beauty and incomparable creativity of the English and Celtic peoples, and I have witnessed the sharp intellectual and moral decline in my brothers and sisters whose place is at the top of the world, not at the bottom of a anti-human dung-pile of social and cultural filth.

Since then I have lived among your kinfolk, the Germans, whom you have falsely been taught to despise by those of a hostile non- European demonic race who own the publishing houses and Hollywood, run the financial markets, write the history books, and own the electronic media you consume daily. I now see little difference between any of our Celtic and Saxon races, for you have sought homogeneity not in the strengths of what once made you culturally magnificent genotypes but in the commonalities of what seem to me the least worthy aspirations any kind of thinking human being would entertain as even remotely conscionable.

If there still be within you in the spirit that once marked you out as English and proud of it, if there yet be within your soul a flame that burns with indignant anger whenever it perceives the flabby incursions of obscenely grotesque liars and traitors such as the Walrus Brown and his piggy horde of obese socialist trough- nosing parasites and his equally treacherous butt-lickers who sit fat-arsed with suitably farting eloquence on the benches of Her Decrepit Majesty's Disloyal opposition benches, then, for at least once in your television-addicted lives, take a sledge-hammer in your hands and smash the edifice of the disingenuous constructions that stand between you and your dignity as a proud and free people.

The time for polite remonstrations is over. If you, People of England, wish to remain free and regain your nation for yourselves once more, you must fucking fight like you have never fought before, neither less fierce as patriots during the civil war or with less resilience against a blitz financed by double-dealing Zionist murderers who played brothers against brothers. Although I am an old man, and in no position to lead you, I shall even abandon my cabin on the border of Switzerland to join you in your fight on the streets of London against the lying scum that have made fools and children of God's finest people.

But if you will go willingly go into one of the 40,979 concentration camps that await those not wholly enamoured of the impoverished and intellectually castrating social-fascist European Union that beckons you with the politically correct sly politics of wall-to-wall digital pornography and the titillating promise of perpetually unrealisable televisual illusions, then you are neither my countrymen, nor human beings worthy of the name, and I shall therefore disown you.

No Englishman who has tasted the scent of a strawberry field on a warm summer's day, or who has written unrequited romantic tomes dedicated to the English maiden who broke his heart but mended his strength and stemmed his tears with beer and cheer, or who sallied for a day a two across pastures and meadows without once being challenged to show his 'papers' to an officiously uniformed gendarme, or came happenstance upon misfortune to be guided by those who owed him no fealty other than the common badge of his Englishness will never, ever, succumb to the slavery of the Soviet European Union.

Under the sunlit skies of a gilded July morning, and lightly kissed in the fruitful and mellow mists of an oaken November evening, there is only one England, destined once more to be everything she was meant to be; and in that land lovers will dream dreams and children will tell tales and old folks will smile in fond remembrance and dutiful thanks for what otherwise could have been.

And of the European Union and the New World Order, a distant memory, not a single world will be said.

And you shall be free.

References:

[1] Concentration camps in the Europea Union:
Go to 12788
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/europe/greece.php

[2] Crackdown on dissent in the EU and death penalty for dissidents:
Go to 12787
http://globalfire.tv/nj/07de/politik/eu_bolschewismus.htm

[3] Bukovsky interview and article:
Go to 12786
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865 http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=_FVp8w_Oz0U


Michael James is a retired ex-journalist and translator who left England in 1992. He now lives alone in an isolated log cabin directly on the border of Switzerland and Germany.



Go to 12785
http://www.rense.com/general81/cain.htm
McCain Not A US Citizen,
Can't Be President?
2-28-8

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

-- The Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 1

McCain was born at Coco Solo Air Base in the Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936. The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. TERRITORY from 1903 to 1979, so, any person born there was automatically considered a U.S. citizen, except if born to foreign diplomatic personnel.

Excerpted from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

7 FAM 1116 KEY PHRASES USED IN THE 14th AMENDMENT AND IN LAWS DERIVED FROM IT

7 FAM 1116.1 "In The United States"

7 FAM 1116.1-1 States and Incorporated Territories

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. The phrase "in the United States" as used in the 14th Amendment clearly includes States that have been admitted to the Union. Sections 304 and 305 of the INA provide a basis for citizenship of persons born in Alaska and Hawaii while they were territories of the United States. These sections reflect, to a large extent, prior statutes and judicial decisions which addressed the l4th Amendment citizenship implications of birth in these and other U.S. territories. Guidance on evidence on such births should be sought from CA/OCS.

b. Sec. 101(a)(38) INA provides that, for the purposes of the INA, The term "United States",... when used in the geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.In addition, under Pub. L. 94-241, the "approving Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America", (Sec. 506(c)), which took effect on November 3, 1986, the Northern Mariana Islands are treated as part of the United States for the purposes of sections 301 and 308 of the INA.

c. All of the aforenamed areas, except Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, came within the definition of "United States" given in the Nationality Act of 1940, which was effective from January 13, 1941 through December 23, 1952.

d. Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of "the United States" for citizenship purposes. Thus there were varying interpretations. Guidance should be sought from the Department (CA/OCS) when such issues arise.


Here are the exemptions...

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"


(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

However, there is THIS...

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

=http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-pretends-mccain-cant-be-president



Go to 12784
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/28/wuspols128.xml
Bill's Nafta legacy haunts Hillary Clinton
By Alex Spillius in Zanesville, Ohio
Last Updated: 3:15am GMT 29/02/2008

A trade deal signed by her husband has returned to haunt Hillary Clinton as she tries to win working-class support in Ohio.

Voters in the run-down industrial state have not been slow to remind the former First Lady that they blame the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) for a decline that has seen 200,000 manufacturing jobs disappear since 2000.

The rust belt state, which votes on March 4, could be Mrs Clinton's last stand against Barack Obama, who has won their previous 11 contests in the race for the Democrat presidential nomination.

He is closing the gap in opinion polls and has already overtaken her in Texas, which votes on the same day.

Mrs Clinton staged an "economic solutions summit" in Zanesville in the heart of Ohio's diminishing steel-producing region. Sharing the stage with state governors and industrial leaders, she launched her vision for the economy, the dominant domestic issue of the campaign.

advertisementDemocrat economists agree that the problems facing states such as Ohio are so deep and complex that redrafting Nafta would make scant difference.

But perception is all in an election campaign and Mrs Clinton faces a struggle to alter views of her husband's record.

Mr Obama got a further boost when one of the so-called super-delegates to August's party convention switched his support to the Illinois senator.

The move by John Lewis, a congressman in Georgia and a veteran of the civil rights movement, was expected to encourage others to follow suit.



Go to 12783
http://www.rense.com/general81/iuvnt.htm
An Invention Called
'The Jewish People'
Intro By Edward C. Corrigan
edcorrigan@edcorrigan.ca
2-29-8

Here is a fascinating review review by well known Israeli writer Tom Segev of a book titled, "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" (published by Resling in Hebrew). It is authored by Israeli historian Shlomo Zand. Prof. Zand teaches at Tel Aviv University. Segev writes "..in one of the most fascinating and challenging books published here in a long time. There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened - hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua. It's all fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of the State of Israel, he asserts."

I should add that this information and arguments have been around for a long time but it is nice to see it published in one of Israel's leading daily newspapers and presented in a book written by an Israeli historian.

Ed Corrigan


An Invention Called 'The Jewish People'
By Tom Segev
Ha'aretz.com
2-29-8


Israel's Declaration of Independence states that the Jewish people arose in the Land of Israel and was exiled from its homeland. Every Israeli schoolchild is taught that this happened during the period of Roman rule, in 70 CE. The nation remained loyal to its land, to which it began to return after two millennia of exile. Wrong, says the historian Shlomo Zand, in one of the most fascinating and challenging books published here in a long time. There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened - hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua. It's all fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of the State of Israel, he asserts.

According to Zand, the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country. The number of those exiled was at most tens of thousands. When the country was conquered by the Arabs, many of the Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the conquerors. It follows that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews. Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others.

If the majority of the Jews were not exiled, how is it that so many of them reached almost every country on earth? Zand says they emigrated of their own volition or, if they were among those exiled to Babylon, remained there because they chose to. Contrary to conventional belief, the Jewish religion tried to induce members of other faiths to become Jews, which explains how there came to be millions of Jews in the world. As the Book of Esther, for example, notes, "And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them."

Zand quotes from many existing studies, some of which were written in Israel but shunted out of the central discourse. He also describes at length the Jewish kingdom of Himyar in the southern Arabian Peninsula and the Jewish Berbers in North Africa. The community of Jews in Spain sprang from Arabs who became Jews and arrived with the forces that captured Spain from the Christians, and from European-born individuals who had also become Jews.

The first Jews of Ashkenaz (Germany) did not come from the Land of Israel and did not reach Eastern Europe from Germany, but became Jews in the Khazar Kingdom in the Caucasus. Zand explains the origins of Yiddish culture: it was not a Jewish import from Germany, but the result of the connection between the offspring of the Kuzari and Germans who traveled to the East, some of them as merchants.

We find, then, that the members of a variety of peoples and races, blond and black, brown and yellow, became Jews in large numbers. According to Zand, the Zionist need to devise for them a shared ethnicity and historical continuity produced a long series of inventions and fictions, along with an invocation of racist theses. Some were concocted in the minds of those who conceived the Zionist movement, while others were offered as the findings of genetic studies conducted in Israel.

Prof. Zand teaches at Tel Aviv University. His book, "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" (published by Resling in Hebrew), is intended to promote the idea that Israel should be a "state of all its citizens" - Jews, Arabs and others - in contrast to its declared identity as a "Jewish and democratic" state. Personal stories, a prolonged theoretical discussion and abundant sarcastic quips do not help the book, but its historical chapters are well- written and cite numerous facts and insights that many Israelis will be astonished to read for the first time.

The Mosquito From Kiryat Yam

On March 27, 1948, a meeting was held in Hiafa concerning the fate of the Bedouin of Arab al-Ghawarina in the Haifa area. "They must be removed from there, so that they, too, will not add to our troubles," Yosef Weitz, of the Keren Kayemeth (Jewish National Fund), wrote in his personal diary. Two months later, Weitz reported to the organization's director, "Our Haifa Bay has been evacuated completely and there is hardly a remnant of those who encroached our border." They were probably expelled to Jordan; some were allowed to remain in the village of Jisr al-Zarqa. The fate of the Arab al-Ghawarina Bedouin has recently made the headlines thanks to Shmuel Sisso, mayor of the Haifa suburb of Kiryat Yam. He has filed a complaint with the police against Google. The reason is the addition that one of the site's surfers, a resident of Nablus, attached to the center of Kiryat Yam in the world satellite photo, stating that the city is built on the ruins of a village that was destroyed in 1948, Arab al-Ghawarina. Sisso's complaint says that this is slanderous.

The facts are as follows: The lands of the Zevulun Valley were purchased in the 1920s by the JNF and by various construction companies, among them one called Gav Yam. The Zionist Archives have the plan for the establishment of Kiryat Yam, dated 1938, and a letter from 1945 states that there were already 100 homes there. Government maps from the British Mandate period identify the territory on which Kiryat Yam was built by two names: Zevulun Valley and Ghawarina. Thus it appears that this was not a settlement but an area in which Bedouin resided.

The Web site of the Israeli organization Zochrot (Remembering) states that there were 720 people at the site in 1948 and that the area was divided among three kibbutzim: Ein Hamifratz, Kfar Masaryk and Ein Hayam, today Ein Carmel.

This story has been making the rounds on the Internet and drawing responses, which can be summed up as follows: "If Sisso is suing Google because they stated that he is living on a destroyed Arab village, the implication is that he thinks this is something bad." Sisso, a lawyer of 57 who is identified with Likud and was formerly Israeli consul general in New York, says, "I don't think there is anything bad about it, but other people might think it is bad, especially people abroad, and that is liable to hurt Kiryat Yam, because people will not want to invest here. Since we are not sitting on a Palestinian village, why should we have to suffer for no reason?"

Moroccan-born, Sisso arrived in Israel in 1955. "I wandered around the whole region and I saw no trace of anyone's having been here before us and supposedly expelled." He asked an American law professor how, if at all, Google could be sued for slander or for damages. This, he says, is the contribution of Kiryat Yam to the struggle against the right of return (of the Palestinian refugees).

It could turn out to be the most riveting trial since Ariel Sharon sued Time magazine, but mayor Sisso has no illusions: "Me against Google is like a mosquito against an elephant," he said this week.

Who America Belongs To

Two professors, Gabi Shefer and Avi Ben-Zvi, were guests this week on Yitzhak Noy's "International Hour" current events program on Israel Radio. The anchor, sounding slightly concerned, asked whether the achievements of Barack Obama show that the United States no longer belongs to the white man. Prof. Shefer confirmed this: Obama is an immigrant, he said. Prof. Ben-Zvi asked to add a remark: Gabi Shefer is right, he said. They are both wrong. If Obama were an immigrant, he would not be eligible to be elected president. He was born in Honolulu, some two years after Hawaii became the 50th state of the union.

=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html



Go to 12782
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/is-wikileaks-ju.html
Is WikiLeaks Judge Having Second Thoughts?
By David Kravets February 28, 2008
The WikiLeaks judge might be softening.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued a document late Thursday suggesting he might have erred last week when he signed an order that took down the WikiLeaks site and also locked "the WikiLeaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar."

A hearing on the issue is scheduled for Friday morning in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

WikiLeaks, a whistleblower site that recently published documents related to prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, was taken offline after posting allegedly stolen documents suggesting a Cayman Islands branch of a Swiss bank was helping customers practice money laundering and tax evasion.

As fellow THREAT LEVEL scribe Kim Zetter has been reporting, Dynadot -- WikiLeaks' U.S. hosting company and domain registrar based in San Mateo, California -- agreed to take down and lock the site at the behest of Julius Baer Bank and Trust. Judge White signed the accord without hearing from WikiLeaks -- an accord that broaches a myriad of First Amendment issues.

In a three-page order issued hours ahead of Friday's hearing, White, appointed by the second President Bush, wondered whether last week's order went too far. "Without WikiLeaks making an appearance, was there any more narrowly tailored remedy for protecting private information from stolen documents from the web site beside locking and disabling the web site until such time as the disputed documents were removed or redacted?"

White also asked whether the accord trumps the First Amendment. He demanded responses concerning a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, in which the high court generally found that it was wrong to be "punishing disclosures of lawfully obtained information of public interest by one not involved in the initial illegality."

White wondered whether the bank's remedy is against Rudolf Elmer, the bank's former vice president of its Cayman Islands' operation. The bank claims Elmer stole and leaked the bank's private documents that purport to show the institution assists its clients in hiding assets from the tax man.

Among the other questions Judge White wants to discuss, they include: "What authority stands for the proposition that the right to privacy trumps the freedom of access to information in this or a similar context?"

Circle back Friday. THREAT LEVEL is attending White's hearing.

Here is WikiLeaks' take on the affair. Here is the bank's position.

(Note that the site is functioning on foreign servers, outside the reach of Judge White. Click here.)



Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.