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 12969
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7547
2nd Amendment Designed To Prevent Despotism
03-20-2008
Gun Owners
Herbert W. Titus & William J. Olson

Compelled to take up arms to regain their liberties as Englishmen, America’s Founders knew that even the constitutional republic they had established could threaten the freedoms for which they had fought. In the First Amendment, they established a first line of defense — the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free State."

Their foremost concern was the precipitating events of the American Revolution, wherein British troops in Massachusetts and Virginia seized American muskets, cannon and powder — actions the Declaration of Independence calls "a design to reduce (the colonists) under absolute Despotism."

Entrusting the nation’s sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government’s military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.

Thus, the amendment’s "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment’s "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals’ test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.



Go to 12968
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7549
50 Cent Tax Hike On Each Gallon Of Gas?
03-20-2008
Fox News

A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.

"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.

While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.



Go to 12967
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7561
Exxon Mobil Spent $16.9 Million Lobbying
03-20-2008
AP

WASHINGTON - Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) Corp., the largest U.S. oil company, spent more than $16.9 million to lobby the federal government in 2007, according to a disclosure form.

The company lobbied on various appropriations bills and on legislation dealing with Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, patent reform, taxes and royalties, international relations and trade agreements, lobbying reform, railroad security and more, according to the form posted online Feb. 14 by the Senate's public records office.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil spent $10.5 million in the second half of 2007 to lobby on those issues.

The energy bill President Bush signed in December did not include billions of dollars in higher taxes for large oil companies that many Democrats wanted to use to fund tax breaks for various clean energy (NASDAQ:CLNE) industries. Similar proposals were revived earlier this month and are working their way through Congress.

Besides Congress, Exxon Mobil lobbied the White House, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Trade Representative's office, the departments of Energy, Defense, Interior, State, Commerce, Homeland Security and more.

Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.



Go to 12966
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7572
The Fine Print Of The Patriot Act
03-21-2008
News Week

When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, law-enforcement agencies hailed it as a powerful tool to help track down the confederates of Osama bin Laden. No one expected it would end up helping to snag the likes of Eliot Spitzer. The odd connection between the antiterror law and Spitzer's trysts with call girls illustrates how laws enacted for one purpose often end up being used very differently once they're on the books.

The Patriot Act gave the FBI new powers to snoop on suspected terrorists. In the fine print were provisions that gave the Treasury Department authority to demand more information from banks about their customers' financial transactions. Congress wanted to help the Feds identify terrorist money launderers. But Treasury went further. It issued stringent new regulations that required banks themselves to look for unusual transactions (such as odd patterns of cash withdrawals or wire transfers) and submit SARs—Suspicious Activity Reports—to the government. Facing potentially stiff penalties if they didn't comply, banks and other financial institutions installed sophisticated software to detect anomalies among millions of daily transactions. They began ranking the risk levels of their customers—on a scale of zero to 100—based on complex formulas that included the credit rating, assets and profession of the account holder.

Another element of the formulas: whether an account holder was a "politically exposed person." At first focused on potentially crooked foreign officials, the PEP lists expanded to include many U.S. politicians and public officials who were conceivably vulnerable to corruption.

The new scrutiny resulted in an explosion of SARs, from 204,915 in 2001 to 1.23 million last year. The data, stored in an IRS computer in Detroit, are accessible by law-enforcement agencies nationwide. "Terrorism has virtually nothing to do with it," says Peter Djinis, a former top Treasury lawyer. "The vast majority of SARs filed today involve garden-variety forms of white-collar crime." Federal prosecutors around the country routinely scour the SARs for potential leads.

One of those leads led to Spitzer. Last summer New York's North Fork Bank, where Spitzer had an account, filed a SAR about unusual money transfers he had made, say law-enforcement and industry sources who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the probe. One of the sources tells NEWSWEEK that Spitzer wasn't flagged because of his public position. Instead, the governor called attention to himself by asking the bank to transfer money in someone else's name. (A North Fork spokesperson says the bank does not discuss its customers.) The SAR was not itself evidence that Spitzer had committed a crime. But it made the Feds curious enough to follow the money.



Go to 12965
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7576
Yuan Sets New Record Against USD
03-21-2008
China Daily

China's currency, the yuan, will continue its ascent in value against the US dollar, and market watchers predict it won't be many days before one dollar trades less than 7 yuan, a new milestone.

The People's Bank of China, the central bank, set the central parity exchange rate at 7.0512 yuan against the greenback on Thursday, rising 136 basic points from Wednesday. The yuan has gained 3.3 percent in value since the beginning of 2008.

The majority of Chinese economists as well as policy-makers believe a strong yuan will help reduce the country's massive trade surplus, mop up excessive liquidity on the market, and curb domestic inflation, which rose to a 11-year high of 8.7 percent in February.



Go to 12964
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7577
Russian FM: Iran Invasion Would Be Disastrous
03-21-2008
AFP

TEL AVIV (AFP) — Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday warned that any military means to solve Iran's controversial nuclear programme would have a "disastrous" effect.

"Any forceful attempts to resolve this issue by non-peaceful means would undermine all that has been done to bring clarity into the Iranian nuclear programme," Lavrov said in a press conference with his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni.

He warned against attempts to undermine the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection of Tehran's programme.

"As long as the inspectors report that they have not found that there is some deviation of this programme into the military field I think it would be disastrous for us to undermine this very efficient and important process."

Israel and its chief ally the United States have refused to rule out military action against Iran in order to halt its nuclear programme, which they believe is aimed at developing a nuclear bomb, a claim denied by Tehran.

Israel considers Iran its top enemy following repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.

Widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel and Washington suspect Tehran of trying to develop atomic arms under the guise of its nuclear programme, a charge Iran denies.



Go to 12963
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7580
Clinton Lies On NAFTA
03-21-2008
The Nation

The Nation -- What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.

But that impression was a deliberate deception.

And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.



Go to 12962
http://www.rense.com/general81/apss.htm
AP - US Arrests Iraq
Journalists To Censor News
By David Edwards and Muriel Kane
3-20-8
AP) -- Associated Press president Tom Curley says his news organization does not buy the government's argument that one of its photographers arrested in Iraq was working on behalf of the enemy, and he alleged the US is rounding up journalists in an attempt to control information.

"To say the least, we see things very differently," Curley commented dryly, regarding photographer Bilal Hussein, who was arrested two years ago and remains in military custody.

Noting that at least a dozen other Iraqi photographers have been detained or arrested, Curley stated, "It's impossible not to conclude that the words and pictures these journalists produced were considered unhelpful to the war effort and that their arrests would have served a broader strategy of information control."

Curley also called on journalists to demand that all the presidential candidates make a commitment to reversing a directive issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft shortly after September 11 that radically restricted the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

Ashcroft's memo stated, "When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records."

Curley told the National Press Club, "When a matter of public policy poses a straight-up choice between the public's rights of access to government and a government effort to infringe or even narrow those rights, journalists cannot pretend to be disinterested observers."

"This is the moment to make it clear to all the presidential candidates how important reversal of the Ashcroft directive is to us and to the people," Curley continued. "We need to ask the candidates at every opportunity ... whether they are willing to appoint an attorney general willing to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law that protects the people's right to know what their government is doing."



Go to 12961
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/that-unique-jewish-morality/
That ‘Unique’ Jewish Morality
March 20, 2008


It is something I run into more and more, both on a personal and non-personal basis. The questions, the bewilderment, the confusion…people trying to fit two completely irreconcilable ideas together in such a way that it all conforms to the laws of reason. ‘How?’ I hear and read often…‘How is it that the Jews–who call themselves ‘a light among nations’ and who constantly lecture the rest of the non-Jewish world on issues such as genocide, holocaust and whatnot–are so willing to turn a callous eye towards the plight of others, and particularly when those ‘others’ happen to be Arabs, the only real ‘Semites’ in the world?’

Well, the answer is really quite simple actually. A picture speaks a thousand words, as they say, and the above picture explains in a microsecond why the Jews of the world are for the most part silent over the slaughter taking place against the Semitic peoples of Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.

Look at the eyes of the man, the deep blue eyes common to European (non-Semitic) Ashkenazi Jews. Consider the other features as well. We have seen his face a thousand times amongst his cousins in the media and whatnot. His name is Shanbo Heineman, a Jew from San Francisco.

Next, look at the wound on his forehead. It was caused by a ‘rubber coated’ bullet fired by one of his own cousins in the IDF operating under orders from headquarters.

By the way, do not let the ‘rubber bullet’ thing fool you. It means nothing. It is simply a plastic coating around a regular lead bullet traveling at 3,000 feet per second and with around 800 foot-pounds of energy PSI behind it. People die from them all the time and the stressing of the ‘rubber coating’ is just a slight-of-hand on Israel’s part in trying to pretty up what is her organically-brutal character. Playing with words and ideas is her specialty and always has been. The Irgun and Stern Gang going into villages and murdering hundreds of innocent civilians is ‘patriotic’ and ‘heroic’ and the Palestinians fighting to protect themselves from being slaughtered is ‘terrorism’.

Anyway, back to our Jewish friend here, Mr. Heineman. He was shot in the head because he dared to follow a higher power, meaning his God-given conscience by protesting the brutality inflicted by Israel against the Palestinians. For this he was rewarded with a bullet to the head. Despite the fact that he survived it, he will be plagued with pain and serious medical problems for the rest of his life. In short, he has been permanently maimed.

And in his eyes you can see the reason why Jews around the world are silent when it comes to what has been done to Israel’s victims in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. In his eyes you can see the fear, no, the TERROR, as well as the sense of betrayal he feels when he figured out in a millisecond that his own people were his own worst enemies, when he realized that they would kill him in a second as if he were nothing more than a cockroach for his willingness to listen to his human conscience instead of listening to his ‘Jewish’ one.

And where is that ‘unique Jewish morality’ speaking out against what was done to him? Where is the ADL and other Jewish watchdog groups? Isn’t his being shot an act of ‘anti-Semitism’? If it were anyone else and the attacker had been another Gentile, we certainly would hear about it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Heineman is a rarity. He is much like those scorpions that are identical to their cousins in every respect except that they carry no poison in their tails, or like the rare pit bull that doesn’t have the same violent tendencies well-known to be part of his breed. Mr. Heineman–like some of his forebearers 2,000 years ago–chose to break from the tribe and follow the path of peace, righteousness and compassion rather than the dictates of that ‘unique Jewish morality’ and in that moment he became a terrorist in the eyes of his rabbis, be they religious or political in nature.

And in one picture that speaks a thousand words, we can see the answers to all those burning questions concerning Jewish ‘suffering’ and ‘persecution’ that has taken place for thousands of years…We see the reason for the deafening silence on the part of those who call themselves the ‘light among nations’ when it comes to the genocide of 2 million–count ‘em, 2,000,000 Iraqi civilians. Whether it is Jews protesting the slaughter of the Palestinians today or whether it was those who dared protest the slaughter of the ancient Canaanites thousands of years ago, the issue is the same–


‘You stick with the tribe, right or wrong, Jew-boy. You don’t ask questions, you follow orders. If your leaders tell you to go and murder a million people, than you DO IT Goddamnit or you will be crushed like a grasshopper.’


On a spring day 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth rode into Jerusalem in triumph and the Jews there welcomed Him as a king, shouting ‘Hosanna to God in the Highest…Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’, laying down palm leaves in His path. The Jewish leadership saw this and were incensed, as Jesus’ teachings threatened to free the Jewish people from the grip of their leaders…

…A week later, the same people who welcomed Jesus as a king were calling for Barabbas–a convicted murderer–to be released and for Jesus–a peaceful, righteous man–to be crucified, shouting ‘Let his blood be upon us and upon our children!’ The change was affected by their leaders who went through the crowd, threatening them if they did not ‘go with the flow’.

Today we see the same thing, as Jews all over the world (with few exceptions) are found cheering for the genocide of the original Semitic peoples of the Holy Land, shouting ‘Let their blood be upon us and upon our children!’

Those who do not add their voices to the mad chorus of the mob are rewarded with bullets to their heads, as was the fine man in this picture Shanbo Heineman. He chose to be a human being instead of a Jew and for that he is regarded as a traitor worthy of death.

Ariel Sharon was right in that interview he gave with Amos Oz in 1982. Jewish morality is ‘unique’. It is very different from the moralities of other religions and cultures throughout history. Other religions and cultures recognize a higher power other than that of man, where the rules of right and wrong do not have an asterisk placed next to them noting an exception exists when it applies to certain people. Jewish morality on the other hand is more ‘flexible’ and allows its people to do certain things that other religions prohibit. It maintains a deceptive, silent, insidious, double-minded and contradictory aspect to its character where the golden rule is ‘whatever benefits the Jews is good’. It is the ultimate ‘end-justifies-the-means’ logic and the same reasoning Cain used in killing his brother Abel.

I never thought the say would come where I see eye-to-eye with mass murderer Ariel Sharon on anything, but surprisingly, after careful and honest consideration, I have to agree with him in that interview in 1982 where he said–


“We’ll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality and all the bullshit talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance…’


…to which I must add a simple yet unequivocal ‘Amen…Let us hear no more of it’



Go to 12960
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=35
How The Jews Took Washington

Dear Friends – A JEWISH POLICY is now the central mark of American foreign policy. Why do I say this? Because 4 Jews are dictating American Foreign Policy to President George Bush:

1. Irving Kristol
2. Paul Wolfowitz
3. Richard Perle
4. Michael Ledeen

These Jews call themselves “neoconservatives.” The neocons are really not “conservatives” in the strict sense of American conservatism. They are, rather, primarily “Jews.” And it is a Jewish cause, namely, Zionism that these four Jews are installing as the key component of George Bush’s Foreign Policy.

Although these Jews are promoting Zionism, none of them live in “Zion” - nor do they have plans to. This is because Zionism for Jews is simply having a place to escape to once a persecution breaks out against them.

The neocon Jews tell Americans that they are “advancing democracy.” They tell Americans that their children should go to war to help advance that “worthy” cause. But what this love of democracy really means for the Jewish neocons is a love for the billions of dollars that America spends on lethal weapons earmarked for “Zion” so that Israel can defend “democracy” by burning little children’s’ faces in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

The Jewish neocons are former Democrats. When George McGovern wanted nothing more to do with militarism and opposing the Soviet Union in his 1972 election campaign, the Jewish Democrats bailed out. Where did they go? To the Republicans! Why? Because the Republicans were against the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union, with their arming of Syria and training of Palestine Liberation operatives, was something these Zionist Jews and the Republicans were against.

The Jewish neocons began their takeover of Washington when Irving Kristol, the godfather of the movement and the founder of Commentary Magazine, (widely read by Jews and politicians on their payroll), in a series of articles written in the early 1990’s, launched the Jewish neoconservative agenda:

—- “The historical task and political purpose of neo-conservatism is to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their prospective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” —-

The above can only be said by those who are in control. - Next came phase II of their takeover of Washington through the use of the Jewish controlled Media. The New Republic, The National Review, Commentary Magazine, The Weekly Standard, and most important, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal began publishing tutoring sessions to convert, (against their wills), the Republican party and American foreign policy makers. In a 2003 offering, Irving Kristol compared the U.S. of today with the old Soviet Union:

—- “Large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the U.S. of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. The U.S. will then always feel obliged to defend a democratic nation under attack from non democratic forces, external or internal. That is why we feel it is necessary to defend Israel when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.” —-

Suddenly America is an “ideological” nation rather than a “Christian nation” founded by a particular ethno-cultural group of Western Europe that should preserve its Christian heritage. Secondly, Irving Kristol cannot be ignorant that America has supported many non democratic nations. In the Cold War the U.S. welcomed as allies, Chiang Kai-Shek, Franco, Somoza, President Marcos, the Shah of Iran, and militarists in Turkey.


The Courting Of George Bush

GEORGE BUSH PRIOR TO 2000 seemed to be unaware of foreign policy issues. In his 2000 election drive he confused Slovenia with Slovakia, could not name the leaders of at least four nations during an interview, and referred to Greek politicians as “Grecians.”

Because of the American Jewish Lobby Group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), with their huge contributions to his election campaign, Bush was very happy to accommodate them by allowing their Jewish neocon agents, namely, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, entry into his entourage.

The Jew neocon Richard Perle expressed his delight, (as Patrick Buchanan put it), “like a Fagan capturing Oliver Twist,” regarding his first meeting with the future President:-

— “The first time I met George Bush, two things became clear. One, he didn’t know very much. Two, he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn’t know very much.” —-

And so began the courting of George Bush shortly before he assumed the office as President. Not wasting any time, the Jewish neocons began tutoring George in “a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”


About Neocon Jew Paul Wolfowitz

Paul Wolfowitz, b. 1943, was indoctrinated iinto radical Zionism by his father Jacob who organized pro Zionist activities. Paul Wolfowitz, like every good Jewish son, continued to perpetuate the marks of his Jewish father in his own passionate attachment to Zionism.

In 1992, when Wolfowitz was Assistant Secretary of the Defense, a document entitled Defense Planning Guidance, penned by Wolfowitz and his Jewish deputy, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, leaked out to the Jewish owned Washington Post.

The memorandum called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter any “potential competitors from aspiring to a larger regional or global role and to implement an offensive strategy to establish and protect a new order.”

The Wolfowitz Doctrine, as it was called, also stated, “While the U.S. cannot become the world’s policeman by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for selectively addressing those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies and friends.”

Obviously, Wolfowitz was ultimately concerned with the U.S. military redressing all “wrongs” committed against that “ally and friend,” Israel. But what about Kosovo? Do the Jew neo cons really care about redressing wrong of any other nation besides Israel?

The Wolfowitz Doctrine was seemingly forgotten. But in September of 2002, with Wolfowitz, and Libby holding key positions in the Bush administration, the memorandum reappeared in an official document entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States.


About The Neocon Jew Richard Perle

Richard Perle, b. 1941, began his political career in 1970 as an aide to the Democrat Senator Henry Jackson. Perle left Jackson in 1980 and was soon named Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. In 1996, in collaboration with the neocon Jews Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote a policy paper entitled, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm:

—- “Israel can shape its strategic environment in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” —-

David Wurmser later waxed even bolder. A resident scholar at the Jewish run think tank American Enterprise Institute, (AEI), Wurmser urged the U.S. and Israel to “await an opportunity to launch pre-emptive strikes, for crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published this U.S. Israeli joint war plan only nine months before 9/11.

When George Bush became President in 2001, Perle was named chairman of the Defense Review Board; Wolfowitz became the Deputy Secretary of Defense; Feith his Undersecretary; while Wurmser became special assistant to Lewis “Scooter” Libby who was appointed Cheney’s Chief of Staff. All of these Jewish neocons had a similar U.S. defense position: to attack Iraq and eliminate Saddam Hussein, a perceived enemy of Israel.

And how did these Jewish country club buddies acquire their appointments? Because AIPAC, the prime financial donator of George Bush’s election campaign, came collecting on behalf of these Jewish agents who would do their bidding.


Jewish Neocons Beat Their War Drums

BUSH’S COUNTERTERRORISM CHIEF, Richard Clarke, on September 12 2001, returned to his office in a state of alarm after a round of meetings which included Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld:

—- “I expected the meetings to examine how to deal with Al Qaeda. Instead I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were going to take advantage of the national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.” —-

On September 20 2007, an open letter was sent to President Bush with forty signatures, including the signatures of Richard Perle, William Kristol, Norman Podheretz, and Jeanne Kilpatrick. It was an ultimatum: To retain the signers’ support, (AIPAC’s re-election $$$), he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran should they refuse to sever ties with Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute a decisive surrender in the war on terrorism.”

But what had Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, had to do with 9/11? Still, the President was given his ultimatum. He must exploit the horror of that atrocity, that “crises,” and channel America’s rage into a series of wars on nations, none of which had attacked the U.S. but all of which were hostile to Israel, or he, President Bush, would face political ruin.

To take advantage of the “crises” of 9/11with its attendant Zionist “opportunity,” Richard Perle wasted no time in an October 2001 article in the Jewish owned New York Times, warning that time was running out, as Saddam Hussein was getting closer to fully developed nuclear weapons. (It has now come to light that no such weapons ever existed):

—- “With each passing day Saddam Hussein comes closer to his dream of a nuclear arsenal. We know Saddam has a clandestine program, spread over many hidden sites, to enrich Iraqi natural uranium to weapon grade uranium. How close is he? We do not know. Two years, three years, tomorrow even?”—-

Almost immediately, neocon Jew Joshua Goldberg of The National Review echoed his county club buddy, Richard Perle: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some crappy little country like Iraq and throw it against the wall just to show we mean business.” In the article, Goldberg oft mentions the Jewish neocon Michael Ledeen and his Ledeen Doctrine.


The Ledeen Doctrine

The Jewish neocon Michael Ledeen, in his recent book, The War Against The Terror Masters, goes right for the jugular. He shows not hesitation in manifesting the venom of his Jewish arrogance and the Jewish neocon agenda to create a Jewish New World Order:

—- “First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. We will remain engaged. We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Creative destruction is our middle name both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.” —-

THE TIME HAS COME in which more and more American Christians are raising their fists high in the air crying aloud, “Oh ye miserable Jews! How long must we bear your “destructive energies” wreaked upon us and our Christian nation *from within*?”

And the time is nigh approaching when all the nations upon which the Neocon Jews, and all the rest of the Anti Christian Jews, who have wrought their “destructive energy upon us” - beginning with the Christian victims of their French Revolution, up through the Christian victims of their Russian Revolution, as well as the Christian victims of the Turkish Holocaust of 1915-22, and now with the Christian victims of their Zionist “Democratic Revolution” - will cry out in unison, “How long Oh Lord, righteous and true, before You take vengeance on the enemies of Your Holy Cross!”

Brother Nathanael…Street Evangelist! @
=http://www.brothernathanael.com/



Go to 12959
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=51
A Christian America! - Not A Jewish America

WE ARE NOW LIVING in a “Jewish” America. We are no longer living in a “Christian” America. This is our misfortune.

St. Paul, who converted from Judaism to Christianity said, “The Jews please not God. They are contrary to all men. They forbid us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.” (Thessalonians 2)

This oracle is fulfilled today before our very eyes. The Jews of the The National Jewish Democratic Council, led by Ira N. Forman, launched on an online petition to CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS and ABC, urging them to no longer use the renown Christian publicist, Anne Coulter, as a commentator - simply because she said that Jews should become Christians. [See: Anne Coulter Interview]

The ACLU which is run and funded by Jews is hell bent on eradicating all public expressions of Christianity by the year 2015. The ACLU is doing this through the Jewish-controlled Court system. [See: Backlash Against ACLU Jews]

The Jews of the ACLU are molding young children’s impressionable minds by bombarding them with images of sexual perversion in America’s public schools. The Jews of the ACLU are encouraging teachers to instruct our children in anal sex between two men and vile sexual interchange between 2 women. [See: ACLU Jews Promote Perversion In Schools ]




Ivy League Colleges, which were once Christian Seminaries, are now inundated with Jews who carry with them their age-long Anti-Christian bias:

1. Harvard University: 2001-2006, President Lawrence Summers (replaced Jew, Neil Rudenstine).
Quote:
I speak with you today not as President of the University but as a concerned member of our community about the issue of anti-Semitism. I am Jewish.

2. Princeton University:1989-2001, President Harvey Shapiro.

3. Dartmouth College:1987-1998, Dartmouth College, President James O. Freedman.
Quote:
I dearly wish that my father, who had confronted Anti-Semitism in finding his early teaching positions, had lived long enough to see the installation of Jewish Presidents at numerous Ivy League and Big Ten Universities.

THE ISRAEL LOBBYis the most powerful lobby in America now. And Jews are key advisors to American Presidents, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and to the present President, George Bush. [See: Jewish Neo-Cons Control US Policy]



Go to 12958
http://www.rense.com/general49/OVER48S.HTM
Overthrow Of The
American Republic - Part 49
Ralph Nader And The Ruling Class
By Sherman H. Skolnick
2-23-4

There are certain more or less censored or forbidden subjects. And if one writes on the same, an author can flunk a popularity test. Why? One simple, but incomplete reason, is that too many inhabitants of North America believe in fairy tales. If the monopoly press designates someone as their "hero", not enough peons are suspicious. This article may qualify to put me on the "crap list" of acceptable commentators.

[1] About thirty five years ago, Ralph Nader had a group of purportedly "idealistic" young men and women. He dubbed them "Nader's Raiders". One part of that group in the Chicago area met occasionally at my house. In my own sly way, I quizzed them. Who are these folks crusading supposedly against the "Establishment"? All of them were young law students or beginning lawyers. But crucial to my understanding of them, they were moreover, I quietly discovered, the sons and daughters of the ultra rich.

Among my close pals, I called such persons "RBs", short for rich bitches. In my own way, I went down my list of what I urged them to do. INVESTIGATE BANKER-JUDGES. I got a blank look. RUNAWAY COURT CORRUPTION. Another blank. Expose the war-mongering mostly private huge Universities. "Nader's Raider's" absolutely not interested. INVESTIGATE THE CIA/FBI's AGENTS PROVOCATEURS. They dismissed the idea.

I tried not to show my suspicion. Privately, I discovered directly that they simply wanted to correct some of the more blatant misdeeds of the Ruling Class, "the powers that be", the Establishment---in other words THEIR elders. That is control perpetuated by a play for time, continuing problems of the system to a generation or more hence, if ever remedied by drastic measures.
[2] Ralph Nader was good at planting phantasies. Such as, that he lived in a cold-water flat, paid almost nothing per month for it, and lived on a very reduced financial level. All of it complete rubbish. Very credible sources contended he had a friend who on occasion drove him around in their Rolls Royce. Nader lived secretly in luxury houses. See: "Me and Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America" by David Sanford, New Republic Books, 1976.

[3] For thirty years and more, he has been an extremely high-paid visiting lecturer at the very universities identified as the center of the "war industry", as documented in the book "The Closed Corporation", by James Ridgeway, 1969 (those familiar with the subject, say little has changed since the book was first published). Ralph Nader was paid between fifteen thousand to thirty thousand dollars honoraria for each speech, which took up about ninety minutes of his time on the lecture platform. Nader received speaking fees over two hundred fifty thousand dollars annually, even in the 1970s.

By the year 2000, when he ran as a candidate for President on the Green Party third party ticket, his lecture income was about just short of a half a million dollars a year. As required by election regulations to be divulged.

[4] Calling it the "Green Party" should be a dead giveaway of what they are about. Basically, their idea of the world, at least as I understand it from having in years past talked to Green Party officials, is that so-called "left-wingers", those truly devoted to workers' rights as against bosses, are the "Reds". That is union members, labor activists, and such, are immediately thought of as dreaded "Communists" whether they espouse anything like Marxism or not. In simple form, it is the "Greens", presumably "anti-Communists" versus "The Communists". I suspect some Green Party supporters will hollar me down on my analysis of the situation.

Nader busted the Union of his own low-paid workers. "Anti Labor Chapter Surfaces in Nader's Past", by Heather Szerlag, Pacifica Radio News, 10/31/2000. "Union Buster? THE NADER?" by Nick Mamatas, Greenwich Village Gazette, Vol.5, #44, 9/15/2000. "Editors Claim Firing by Nader Based on Unionizaion Attempt" by Peter Perl, Washington Post, 6/28/1984, page B 3. As to his group, Public Citizen,Inc., Nader refused to divulge their finances, although required by law. "Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure", Wall Street Journal, 3/17/1992, page A 14.

[5] By the time of his mandatory disclosure as presidential candidate in the year 2000 campaign, Ralph Nader had about three million dollars in high-tech industry stock, primarily firms into war electronics for the Pentagon. Nader amassing money sources. Ralph Nader's official financial disclosure for year 2000. Open Secrets web site. "Inside Nader's Stock Portfolio" by Jake Tapper, Salon Magazine, 10/28/2000. "Mr. Nader's Conglomerate" (editorial), Wall Street Journal, 4/17/1980, page 26. "Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, 9/17/1999, pages 119, 122. Nader amassed his fortune by speculating on the very stocks of corporations he condemned. "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", by Dan Burt, Regnery Gateway publishers, Chicago, 1982.

[6] From about 1969 into the 1970s, I gave lectures and seminars all over the U.S. on the subject of "agent provocateurs" and war-mongers and war- profiteers. This was at small junior colleges, which were mostly trade schools for working class students; and student government sponsored lectures at State Universities. These lectures were often vigorously opposed by faculty members who wanted to silence me. Placards announcing my upcoming speeches often were torn down by mysterious forces.

I cannot forget the speech I was scheduled to give at a junior college in a Chicago suburb. My court-reform group was to receive, for my lecture, seventy-five dollars (a laughable sum by Nader standards). It was toward the close of the Viet Nam War. At the last minute, the college President revoked the seventy-five dollar budget.

Into his office came several disgruntled students, ex-GIs, still wearing their Marine outfits but with Peace symbols painted on their back. They told the junior college boss, "Look, we want Skolnick to give us the low-down on the war-mongers. We learned in Nam how to blow up places. Restore the f---ing money, or we're going to level this place with you in it." They wore the same outfits to my speech.

Later, over supper with them, they told me all about it. I asked, "How did you survive being so shot at in Nam?" They answered, "We slept near the rice paddies and told the Lt. that HE should be point man on night patrol and most likely go home himself in a body bag."

"Then what?" I asked. "If he did not listen, we late at night threw a grenade into his tent. (Called 'fragging', apparently from the word fragmentation.) And if he survived, we said 'Lt., it was the little V.C.woman doing your laundry. SHE did it.' "

I understand that "fragging" U.S. officers is happening in Iraq by the "grunts".
[7] Nader, a lawyer, apparently never openly discusses the situation with THIRD PARTY candidates in America. They are obstructed from having equal ballot access by a thick forest of State laws. And the U.S. Supreme Court, traditionally made up of zillionaires on behalf of the Ruling Class, has repeatedly refused to strike down these obstructions.

Europe, to their credit, does NOT block third, fourth, and even fifth party candidates from sitting in their Parliaments. By way of a defect in the U.S. Constitution, the highest Executive, the President, is NOT required to come before the Parliament, that is Congress, to be regularly if not daily grilled and even, if necessary, heckled as to his policies, as a Prime Minister is before a Parliament.

In the annual State of the Union speech, the President is not questioned in Congress by anyone present there. On that extremely rare occasion of Resolutions of Impeachment in the House, followed by a Senate Impeachment Trial, the President is not required to attend to give oral testimony or answers.

In a Parliament system, the Prime Minister has to appear almost daily to be grilled if not heckled by the "back-benchers". He must organize votes above a certain number to introduce any legislation.

Does Nader ever comment on the arithmetic of American law? Notice. Canada has about thirty million population. And they have about three hundred representatives in their Lower House.
GET THIS. AMERICA, with about THREE HUNDRED MILLION POPULATION, has just 435 Representatives in the Lower House, and 100 Senators in the U.S. SENATE. Most every Representative and Senator is a lawyer and/or represents huge financial interests, not the ordinary person in their back-home district.

Among 535 that purport to represent Americans THERE IS CURRENTLY JUST ONE "INDEPENDENT", a great rarity to have even one. NOT A SINGLE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE is generally permitted to sit in Congress.

I have particular insight into this. In the 1960s and 1970s, in Illinois, on behalf of myself as a voter, and on behalf of all voters similarly situated, I brought and won vast class action Reapportionment suits as to most every type of State and U.S. election district. My suits were on the basis of scrapping the then-current mal-apportioned districts and applying the doctrine of ONE MAN, ONE VOTE, each district re-drawn to have, within a very few per cent, equal population. The federal judges on occasion violently opposed me. In my suit against the Mayor & City Council of Chicago, to re-district the fifty city Wards into equal population voting districts, and open the way for blacks and latinos to have equal representation; I accused the Chief Judge of the Court, assigned to my case, of being beholden to gangsters in that the Chief Judge was a Director of the gangster-originated Albert Parvin Foundation. The Chief Judge in 1967, falsely told his bailiffs I was a "vioient,

dangerous" person, and two bailiffs in his courtroom, without provocation, grabbed hold of my wheelchair and tried to turn it upside down with me in it. Eighteen mass media reporters were witnesses to the same but did not report it. The situation became an assault and battery case by me. The higher court said I am not entitled to any remedy even though there was no proof I was a "violent, dangerous" person. [Skolnick vs. Guadagno, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit case.]

[8] For more than 12 years, I conducted a one-hour weekly, public access Cable TV Show, cablecast within the City Limits of Chicago, to upwards of 400,000 viewers. In many election periods, we put on Third Party candidates, often completely ignored by the monopoly press. I found most of such candidates to be intellectually superior compared to what the Establishment offered the public by way of two parties, the candidates of which are generally bought and sold.
The press-fakers, generally, if forced to depict a Third Party candidate, BUT NOT THEIR BOY RALPH NADER, usually describe them in a way that they are nuts, kooks, or numb-skulls with no platform or policies whatever and having no news or issue value whatever.

In the year 2000 Presidential election, Ralph Nader, a spoiler, pulled 97 thousand votes in Florida while condemning the Democrats. As a disrupter, Nader made it possible and economical for GOP officials to purportedly heavily bribe South Florida DEMOCRAT officials, at a strategic moment, to stop the recount of Democrat ballots. Candidate Albert Gore, Jr., had won the popular vote nationwide by a 600,000 plurality. The Florida vote was crucial to the Electoral College vote system.

A five-judge, military-style Junta, on the U.S. Supreme Court corruptly installed George W. Bush as the occupant and resident of the White House. To see the court records of the corruption involved in the high court in Washington, in the litigation Bush versus Gore, visit our website story, "Coca-Cola, the CIA, and the Courts", parts 9 and 10.

It is no secret that Bush White House bagman and Rasputin, Karl Rove, is overjoyed that Ralph Nader has announced he is running on Third Party ticket for President. If not on the Green Party ticket, Nader may not even be on lesser state ballots, but no doubt will be shown on those necessary for the big fix favoring possibly Bush.

IS RALPH NADER AMERICA'S MOST PROTECTED AND CONCEALED "Agent Provocateur"? Using polished rhetoric to mislead those dumbed-down by the oil-soaked, spy-riddled American monopoly press? Retired spooks aver that Nader is a CIA weirdo provocateur. He appears to be part of the gay underground media and government cult, that includes George W. Bush and U.S. Senator John Kerry.

IS NADER JUST MORE BUSH WHITE HOUSE ELECTION INSURANCE? Is Nader part of "The Secret Agenda" to discredit the U.S. nation-state, put an end to Presidential elections, and create the Breakaway States of the disunited provinces of America? [That was one purpose of the Brits in turning the North versus the South, on the excuse of the "slavery" issue, in the U.S. Civil War, or "War Between the States".] AND TO RUN THIS LAND WITH AN EMERGENCY FASCIST PANEL, not a Presidency?

[Visit earlier parts of this series as well as my co-authored series The Middle-Finger News.]
For example, on Sunday, February 22, 2004, Nader appeared on the NBC Network program, with NBC owned by General Electric. Did Nader say anything against G.E.? He should have mentioned---but didn't--- that the Albert Gore family was instrumental in the perpetuation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA, by which electricity in that State is almost free. Further, the Gores were instrumental for the first and only time in U.S. history to get the top officials of the electric machinery monopoly, General Electric and Westinghouse, put in federal prison for anti-trust violations, fingered as they were by the TVA and the Gores, 1961.

Is Ralph Nader ready to adopt a motto against BIG OIL, BIG MEDIA, BIG ELECTRICITY? And how about Nader's cronies in the war-mongering high-tech electronics industry, and he owns millions of dollars of their stocks? Does Nader ever raise questions about the political assassination of U.S. leaders, such as John F. Kennedy, and civil rights activists, such as Malcolm X and Dr. King? Of course not. Does Nader ever raise questions about the Queen of England getting huge U.S. cotton subsidies based on British Royalty having owned the Illinois Central Railroad, from Chicago to New Orleans, operating through farmlands in the South and owning vast tracts of land on either side of their tracks?

Does Nader ever raise questions about the Bush Crime Family being in a ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR joint account with Queen Elizabeth II, in her private bank, Coutts Bank London? And that Saddam Hussein, having been a private business partner of Daddy Bush, has a huge interest in that account as well?

[9] I conducted seminars at small colleges, not those big private ones of the Ruling Class, and at a broadcast school in Chicago. I used to suggest a possible government undercover operative as a target of the class investigation. I said to my students that as they start the probe, first go down to the drugstore and buy a roll of cotton.

"But Mr. Skolnick, why the cotton?" And I responded, "Because provocateurs have polished rhetoric most times being impossible to penetrate. Plug up your ears, do not listen to their mouth. TRACE THE MONEY. EXAMINE THEIR ACTS."

During the Anti-Viet Nam War movement period, I taught methods, quite successful but often not accepted by naive sorts, of identifying agents provocateurs. It is a French term defined as "A secret agent hired to penetrate some organization to incite trouble designed to make the organization or its its members incur punishment".

Methods I taught included tracing the money to them through CIA-linked Foundations. Little-known, such tax-exempt entities have to file publicly available federal tax forms.[It is a tedious task, however, following the money through various conduits, pass-throughs, and fronts. Scroll all the way down the website for a related story. www.skolnicksreport.com "A Short History of CIA Fronts".]

I was often misunderstood, condemned, or ignored by naive idealists. In Chicago was a peacenik group headed by a charming CIA operative with believeable rhetoric. Dressed as a bearded hippie, he worked tirelessly to incite the members to "action".

"Don't just sit there!" he exhorted his group. "Come on. Let's fire-bomb the ROTC Center!" [The military facility, Reserve Officers Training Corp.] As he led them into breaking windows and were getting set to torch the place, the peaceniks were directed right into confronting the National Guard, lined up, ready with fixed bayonets. Some of the peaceniks were bloodied and later, all were arrested, and the Peace group scattered and disbanded. The provocateur-leader? Just before the flash-point of the commotion, he had safely disappeared behind the military lines.
My repeated prior warnings to the group about their "leader" were ignored and I was bad-mouthed as someone who does not understand the "Peace Movement".

Naive, poorly-informed persons probably "bought" Ralph Nader's words. Provocateurs, to seem credible, say believeable things. So what? In a politically realistic world, they are just running their mouth. As a lawyer, Nader is not about to finger top-level judges, as we do, who are inherently corrupt as Banker-Judges. He will not really heckle the high court in Washington. He will say nothing about the British Royals and the Jesuits who for two hundred years of U.S. history, benefitted from and instigated the political assassination OF SEVEN U.S. PRESIDENTS who opposed British encroachment on U.S. financial and industrial development and opposed the Vatican itching to have a firm foothold in America. [Four Presidents murdered by gunfire from supposed "lone assassins", three by poisoning. See earlier parts of this series.]

[10] He would have you believe he is "Saint Ralph" which he is NOT.
Nader is a bagman for the trial lawyers' lobby. "Ralph Nader is a bargain for trial lawyers at $1,000 a Table", Wall Street Journal, 6/24/92.

He blocks releasing money records of organizations he runs, and for such violations is not bothered by the Justice Department. Such as his group Public Citizen., Inc. "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", by Dan Burt, Regnery Gateway publishers, Chicago, 1982.
.He amasses millions while playing the stock market regarding corporations he publicly attacks. Numerous details catalogued at www.realchange.org/nader.htm which details various sources of Nader's dirty business including his family members (some reportedly with the American CIA).



Go to 12957
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/39Single-mom39-emerges-as-real.3882899.jp
16th March 2008
'Single mom' emerges as real mentor of young Obama

« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »
View GalleryBy Janny Scott
IN THE condensed version of the Barack Obama story, his mother is simply the white woman from Kansas. On the campaign trail, he has called her his "single mom."
But neither description begins to capture the unconventional life of Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, the parent who most shaped Obama.

Kansas was merely a stop-off in her childhood, wheeling westward in the slipstream of her furniture-salesman father. In Hawaii, she married an African student at the age of 18. Then she married an Indonesian, moved to Jakarta, became an anthropologist, wrote an 800-page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing in Java, worked for the Ford Foundation, championed women's work and helped bring microcredit to the world's poor.

She had high expectations for her children. In Indonesia, she would wake her son at 4am for correspondence courses in English before school. She brought home recordings of Mahalia Jackson and speeches by Martin Luther King. And when Obama asked to stay in Hawaii for high school rather than return to Asia, she accepted living apart – a decision her daughter says was one of the hardest in her mother's life.

"She felt that somehow, wandering through uncharted territory, we might stumble upon something that will, in an instant, seem to represent who we are at the core," said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister.

"That was very much her philosophy of life – not to be limited by fear or narrow definitions, to not build walls around ourselves and to do our best to find kinship and beauty in unexpected places."

Soetoro, who died of ovarian cancer in 1995, was the parent who raised Obama, the Illinois senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

He barely saw his father after the age of two. Though it is impossible to pinpoint the imprint of a parent on the life of a grown child, people who knew Soetoro well say they see her influence unmistakably in Obama.

They were close, her friends and his half-sister say, though they spent much of their lives with oceans or continents between them. He would not be where he is today, he has said, had it not been for her.

Yet he has also made some different choices – marrying into a tightly knit African-American family rooted in the south side of Chicago, becoming a church-going Christian, publicly recounting his search for his identity as a black man.

Some of what he has said about his mother seems tinged with a mix of love and regret. He has said his biggest mistake was not being at her bedside when she died. And when the candidates were asked about "prized keepsakes", Obama said his was a photograph of the cliffs of the south shore of Oahu in Hawaii where his mother's ashes were scattered.

"I think sometimes that had I known she would not survive her illness, I might have written a different book – less a meditation on the absent parent, more a celebration of the one who was the single constant in my life," he wrote in the preface to his memoir, Dreams From My Father.

He added: "I know that she was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and that what is best in me I owe to her."

"She was a very, very big thinker," said Nancy Barry, a former president of Women's World Banking, an international network of microfinance providers, where Soetoro worked in New York City in the early 1990s. "I think she cared about the core issues, and I think she was not afraid to speak truth to power."

Her parents were from Kansas – her mother from Augusta, her father from El Dorado, a place Obama first visited in a campaign stop in January.

Stanley Ann (her father had wanted a boy so he gave her his name) was born on an army base during the Second World War. The family moved to California, Kansas, Texas and Washington in restless pursuit of opportunity before landing in Honolulu in 1960.

In a Russian class at the University of Hawaii, she met the college's first African student, Barack Obama. They married and had a son in August 1961, in an era when interracial marriage was rare in the United States. Her parents were upset, Obama learned years later from his mother, but they adapted.

The marriage was brief. In 1963, Obama left for Harvard, leaving his wife and child. She then married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian student. When he was summoned home in 1966 after the turmoil surrounding the rise of Suharto, Soetoro and young Barack followed.

Those choices were not entirely surprising, said several high school friends of Soetoro. She never dated "the crew-cut white boys", said one friend, Susan Blake. "She had a world view, even as a young girl. It was embracing the different, rather than that ethnocentric thing of shunning the different. That was where her mind took her."

Her second marriage faded too in the 1970s. She wanted to work, one friend said, and Lolo Soetoro wanted more children.

That both unions ended is beside the point, some friends suggested. Soetoro remained loyal to both husbands and encouraged her children to feel connected to their fathers.

By 1974, she was back in Honolulu, a graduate student and raising Barack and Maya, nine years younger. Barack was on scholarship at a prestigious prep school, Punahou. When Soetoro decided to return to Indonesia three years later for her field work, Barack chose not to go.

"I doubted what Indonesia now had to offer and wearied of being new all over again," he wrote in his memoir.

"More than that, I'd arrived at an unspoken pact with my grandparents: I could live with them and they'd leave me alone so long as I kept my trouble out of sight."

During those years, he was "engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America."

Soetoro-Ng recalled her mother's quandary. "She wanted him to be with her," Soetoro-Ng said. But she added: "She recognised that it was perhaps the best thing for him."

That time apart was hard for both mother and son. "She longed for him," said Georgia McCauley, who became a friend of Soetoro in Jakarta. Barack spent summers and Christmas vacations with his mother. They communicated by letters.

"There were certainly times in his life in those four years when he could have used her presence on a more daily basis," Soetoro-Ng said. "But I think he did all right for himself."

Fluent in Indonesian, Soetoro moved with Maya first to Yogyakarta, the centre of Javanese handicrafts. A weaver in college, she was fascinated with what Soetoro-Ng calls "life's gorgeous minutiae".

That interest inspired her study of village industries, which became the basis of her 1992 doctoral dissertation.

"She loved living in Java," said her friend Alice Dewey, who recalled accompanying Soetoro to a metal-working village. "People said: 'Hi! How are you?' She said: 'How's your wife? Did your daughter have the baby?' They were friends. Then she'd whip out her notebook and she'd say: 'How many of you have electricity? Are you having trouble getting iron?'"

She became a consultant for the US Agency for International Development on setting up a village credit programme, then a Ford Foundation programme officer in Jakarta specialising in women's work. Later, she was a consultant in Pakistan, then joined Indonesia's oldest bank to work on what is described as the world's largest sustainable microfinance programme, creating services like credit and savings for the poor.

Soetoro-Ng, who herself became an anthropologist, remembers conversations with her mother about philosophy or politics, books, esoteric Indonesian woodworking motifs.

"She gave us a very broad understanding of the world," her daughter said. "She hated bigotry. She was very determined to be remembered for a life of service."

She died in November 1995, as Obama was starting his first campaign for public office.

After a memorial service at the University of Hawaii, one friend said, a small group of friends drove to the South Shore in Oahu.

With the wind whipping the waves onto the rocks, Obama and Soetoro-Ng placed their mother's ashes in the Pacific, sending them off in the direction of Indonesia.



Go to 12956
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve08/1358venez.html
The Guardian 19 March, 2008

US blocks Venezuelan purchase of food

"The war with the US has already begun and they are blocking our purchases of food", Venezuelan Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín told viewers on Venezuelan TV on March 12. His statement came at a time when the US is threatening to add Venezuela to its list of "terror-sponsoring" states and some Senators are calling for a full blockade of the country.

The Venezuelan minister, speaking on the program Counter Coup in Synthesis, accused the US of blocking purchases by the government, especially of food, from foreign sources. Venezuela’s economy is essentially oil-based. It imports around 70 percent of its food products. The blocking of food supplies is just one of the methods being used by the US in its attempts to undermine the popularity of the government and destabilise the internal situation there.

Rodríguez told viewers that for some time the US has exercised an informal blockade against Venezuela. The government has also had difficulty acquiring spares for military equipment and other items important to the national interest.

This, he added, was part of the war declared by Washington on the Bolivarian Revolution and it combines with the paramilitary offensive in Venezuela and the actions of the Opposition.

US President Bush last week accused Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez of backing "terrorists" in Colombia. Since Colombia’s brutal bombing of a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)* camp in Ecuador on March 1, the US administration’s propaganda machine has been churning out lies to discredit the progressive governments of Venezuela and Ecuador.

Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa has strongly denied accusations that his country has harboured FARC forces. Those making such accusations were attempting to destabilise Ecuador and force Ecuador to join Plan Colombia, Correa said.

Plan Colombia is part of the US’s bogus war on drugs, where billions of dollars are given to puppet governments to fight progressive forces in their countries.

The Colombian government has since apologised for its actions on the sovereign territory of Ecuador, but diplomatic relations with Colombia are still cool after the bombing of its territory and the deaths (in fact cold-blooded assassination) of around 21 people in a FARC camp, including three Mexican students.

The FARC members killed in the March 1 attack include commander and international spokesperson Raúl Reyes, who was a member of the organisation’s secretariat. They were involved in the humanitarian exchange of prisoners in Ecuador. In the previous week FARC had unilaterally released four prisoners, demonstrating good will and a genuine desire for peace.

On the day of the bombing, three personal envoys of French President Nicolas Sarkozy were in Ecuador and due to visit the camp for negotiations for the release of Ingrid Betancourt who holds dual French and Colombian citizenship.

The Interpress Service News Agency reports that the envoys were phoned on the morning of March 1 by Colombian Peace Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo who warned them not to go to the meeting with Reyes as they would be in danger.

Since the attack, more information has come to light indicating that the precision bombing was a well planned, pre-meditated and high tech operation. Questions are being raised about the capability of Colombian forces to have executed such a strike without the involvement of the US.

Whether the US was directly or indirectly behind the attack, politically it is behind the Uribe government of Colombia.

In addition to receiving billions of dollars in military funding and other assistance, Colombia has sent more than 10,000 soldiers to train at the US’s notorious School of Americas (SOA). SOA Watch reports that its graduates have been involved in massacres, the killing of striking workers, assassinations, torture and other crimes.

The current head of the Colombian Army, Mario Motoya Uribe, is a former instructor at the SOA, and is reportedly associated with the paramilitary that do much of the dirty work for the Colombian government.

SOA Watch notes that nearly four million people have been displaced, mostly by the illegal paramilitary groups. "These vigilante groups, which often work in collaboration with Colombia’s military, are responsible for the ‘disappearances’ of more than 15,000 people. They have murdered more than 1,700 indigenous farmers and organisers, 2,500 union workers and nearly 5,000 members of the Union Patriótica movement. The violence has resulted in the displacement of thousands of Afro-Colombian and independent farmers from their lands. Victims of the paramilitaries are routinely tortured before being killed," SOA Watch reports. (www.soaw.org)

It is these acts of terror and a regime of fear and violence from which FARC is fighting to liberate workers and peasants.

*FARC is both an army and a communist party, fighting for a socialist Colombia. The US and European Union have listed it as a terrorist organisation and spread endless lies about its activities. The true terrorists, the narcotic agencies and those who murder civilians, are to be found in the US-backed Colombian government and government-backed paramilitaries. FARC is a belligerent force in a four-decade long civil war.



Go to 12955
http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C23381013-23109%2C00.html#
March 15, 2008
RUSSIA'S secret service foiled an assassination attempt on President Vladimir Putin in Red Square on March 2, the day of the presidential election, the Tvoi Den daily reported today.

The newspaper did not cite any sources but gave a detailed account about the arrest of a Tajik national with a sniper rifle in a raid on a rented apartment near Red Square just hours before Putin was due to give a speech there.

Contacted by AFP, the Federal Security Service (FSB) could not immediately comment on the report. Tvoi Den, a popular daily, often prints exclusive reports on Russian politics citing unnamed officials.

An informant told FSB officials a few days before the election that Putin's assassination was being planned and that an apartment had been rented on the other side of the river from the Kremlin for the purpose, Tvoi Den said.

Security officers raided the apartment in the evening of March 2 and detained a 24-year-old Tajik national with a "whole arsenal of firearms,'' including a sniper rifle and a Kalashnikov assault rifle, the daily continued.

About three hours later, Mr Putin and his ally Dmitry Medvedev, who won the March 2 election by a landslide, walked out of the Kremlin onto Red Square and gave victory speeches at a concert there to thousands of screaming fans.

FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev gave a briefing earlier this week where he said that Russian security services had foiled "terrorist attacks'' during the election campaign and on election day but did not provide further details.



Go to 12954
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aXt9D1HN.GVE&refer=australia
Gold Falls Most Since June 2006 on Fed's Interest-Rate Decision

By Pham-Duy Nguyen

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Gold futures plunged the most since June 2006 after the Federal Reserve reduced U.S. borrowing costs less than investors expected and signaled more cuts won't be as aggressive. Silver tumbled more than 7 percent.

The Fed yesterday reduced the overnight-lending rate 0.75 percentage point to 2.25 percent. Interest-rate futures showed more bets on a reduction to 2 percent. Two days ago, gold reached a record $1,033.90 an ounce as cuts to the benchmark rate sent the dollar to an all-time low against the euro.

``It's a function of expectations,'' said Chip Hanlon, who helps manage $1.5 billion at Delta Global Advisors Inc. in Huntington Beach, California. ``Market sentiment has changed to `maybe the Fed can bail us out.' Investors who want to own gold should be aware the correction could be sharp in price and prolonged in time.''

Gold futures for April delivery fell $59, or 5.9 percent, to $945.30 an ounce on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange. That marked the biggest percentage drop for a most-active contract since June 13, 2006. The metal climbed in the previous six sessions, gaining 3.3 percent.

Gold for immediate delivery dropped $37.54, or 3.8 percent, to $944.70 an ounce at 4:52 p.m. New York time.

Silver futures for May delivery fell $1.515, or 7.6 percent, to $18.445 an ounce, marking the biggest percentage decline since Aug. 16. The price is still up 24 percent this year.

`Correction'

Before today, gold climbed 20 percent in 2008 after gaining for seven straight years.

``There is some measurable support for gold in the low $900s,'' Hanlon said. ``There isn't heavy support until $800. It may sound like a dramatic decline, but it's a correction in a bull market.''

The U.S. central bank has slashed the federal-funds rate by 3 percentage points since September as losses in the credit market and the slump in home sales threatened to push the U.S. into a recession.

``One hundred basis points was priced into the market and so gold is correcting for that,'' said Joel Crane, a metals strategist at Deutsche Bank AG in New York. ``There's a lot of positions that need to be unwound. Gold performs better in a lower interest-rate environment.''

Treasuries Rally

Treasuries rallied as interest-rate futures show traders paring bets the Fed will reduce its target rate by 0.5 percentage point at its April 30 meeting. The dollar rose against a basket of six major currencies.

``The gold market is focused on U.S. monetary policy, and I'm on guard for a shift in market psychology,'' said Ralph Preston, an analyst at Heritage West Financial Inc. in San Diego. ``It's anybody's guess how low gold will go now.''

Gold futures reached the record this week after Bear Stearns Cos., the second-largest underwriter of U.S. mortgage bonds, accepted a buyout from JPMorgan Chase & Co. to avoid collapse.

Before today, gold jumped 51 percent since Aug. 17, when the Fed first took measures to ease the credit crunch by cutting the so-called discount rate from 6.25 percent. The rate is now 2.5 percent.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, the two biggest U.S. securities firms, said they were borrowing cash directly from the Fed, signaling the central bank's steps to ease borrowing restraints are working. The Fed last week said it would lend banks $200 billion in exchange for mortgage-backed debt.

`Moderate Growth'

Yesterday, Fed officials said in a statement that the rate cut and earlier measures ``should help to promote moderate growth over time and to mitigate the risks to economic activity.''

The central bankers also signaled monetary policy may now include fighting inflation.

The Standard & Poor's 500 Index jumped as much as 4.2 percent after the rate cut yesterday, while gold fell as much as 2.6 percent. Equities climbed as much as 0.8 percent today before retreating as shares of energy and mining companies dropped.

``There's a general belief that things aren't going to be getting much worse,'' said Stephen Platt, a commodity analyst at Archer Financial Services Inc. in Chicago. ``The Fed is not feeding the gold market more bullish news.''

Before today, the S&P 500 dropped 9.4 percent this year. Investors had poured money into commodities, partly as a hedge against inflation. That drove oil, corn, wheat, soybeans and platinum to all-time highs.

StreetTracks

Investment in the StreetTracks Gold Trust, the biggest exchange-traded fund backed by bullion, swelled to a record 663.8 metric tons on March 17.

The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index, which tracks 26 futures, fell as much as 4.2 percent to 1,427.66 today. The gauge climbed to a record 1,573.84 on Feb. 29.

``Some holdings of commodities as an asset class are being let go,'' said William O'Neill, a partner at Logic Advisors in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. ``At this point, the risk-reward gets a bit unattractive. Investors are taking some money out of commodities and gingerly moving it into equities.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Pham-Duy Nguyen in Seattle at pnguyen@bloomberg.net.



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