15.4.07

Freedom to Fascism

Freedom to Fascism

This is the "Director's Final Cut" authorized version of Aaron Russo's documentary, America: Freedom To Fascism (AFTF). It is being uploaded to Google Video for the first time during the evening of October 19-20th, 2006. Aaron has listened to everyone's feedback - volunteers, students, lovers of freedom & liberty, young and old alike - and, true to his word, he is putting this up "for free" on Google Video knowing that the hour has come for Americans to either be awakened to restore the Republic or be swept aside by the dark global forces of fascism that seeks to enslave mankind.
AFTF's main focus comes in a statement with six very simple words:
SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM!!

Are Income Taxes Unconstitutional ?

April 2, 2007

The Illegal, Unconstitutional Income Tax in America - Never Ratified by the States

Filed under: IRS Fraud, World News — Phil Jayhan @ 11:40 pm

Posted by: Phil Jayhan

Original link: http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn02-4

Chapter 2.4: The Federal Income Tax
Collecting the interest payments for the owners of the Federal Reserve

The Federal Income Tax

With the Illuminati in complete control of our monetary system, they were ready for the next step. They couldn’t touch the money of the people, because the Constitution did not contain any provision for the taxing of income; so they now set into motion a plan to accomplish this, in order to oppress the middle class, and increase the lower class, who would have to depend on the government for their survival.

From 1862-72, to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax: 3% on incomes from $600 to $10,000, and 5% for incomes above that, which was later deemed to be insufficient, and it was increased twice, till it reached a high of 10% on all incomes over $5,000. The tax was criticized because it wasn’t apportioned among the states according to population. The Act of 1862 also provided for a sales tax, excise tax, and inheritance tax; and established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and was given the authority to enforce tax laws. In 1868, tobacco and alcoholic beverages were taxed.

The income tax was discontinued in 1872, but after heavy lobbying by the Populist Party, it was reinstated in 1894, as part of the Wilson-German Tariff Bill, when Congress enacted a 2% tax on all incomes over $4,000 a year. On May 20, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tax was unconstitutional, because it was not distributed among the states in accordance with the Constitution. Newspapers controlled by the Illuminati denounced the Court’s decision.

To see the Rest of this story, Click the Image below;

Click Here for Part II


When the income tax legislation was introduced in the Senate in 1894, Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich had come out against it, saying it was “communistic and socialistic,” but in 1909, he proposed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, with the support of President Taft, which called for the creation of a progressive graduated income tax. It was ratified in February, 1913, and levied a 1% tax on all incomes over $3,000, and a progressive surtax on incomes over $20,000. Although praised by reformers, conservatives said it was “a first step toward complete confiscation of private property.”

According to a 2-volume investigative report called The Law That Never Was, by William J. Benson (who had been a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years) and M. J. ‘Red’ Beckman, on February 25, 1913, shortly before the end of his term, Secretary of State Philander C. Knox ignored various irregularities, and fraudulently declared that the 16th Amendment had been ratified by three-fourths (or 36) of the 48 states. Benson traveled to all the State archives and to the National Archives in Washington, DC, obtaining more than 17,000 pages of documents, all properly notarized and certified by state officials, that proved that the 16th Amendment was never [properly] ratified.

A 16-page memo dated February 15, 1913, to Knox from his solicitor stated that only four states had “correctly” ratified the amendment, that Minnesota had not forwarded their copy yet, and that the resolutions from 33 states contained punctuation, capitalization, or wording different than the Resolution that was approved by Congress. The memo read:

“In the certified copies of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the proposed 16th amendment, it appears that only four of these resolutions (those submitted by Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico) have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress. The other thirty-three resolutions all contain errors either of punctuation, capitalization, or wording. Minnesota, it is to be remembered, did not transmit to the Department a copy of the resolution passed by the legislature of the state. The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, or both, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording…”

Benson discovered that some word changes and misplaced commas were done by legislative intent. State Legislatures voting to ratify a proposed Constitutional amendment must use a certified, exact copy, as passed by the Congress. Since this was not done, legally, the Government can only collect an income tax within the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and all sections of the Internal Revenue Code based on the 16th Amendment are not valid.

  • Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania did not approve or ratify the amendment.
  • Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitution to empower the federal government to tax their citizens.
  • Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, but later declared it passed without a recorded vote only after the amendment had been declared ratified by Knox.
  • Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California, and Washington violated their own state constitutions during their ratification procedures.
  • Minnesota had not sent any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed copy, as was required by law.
  • Oklahoma, Georgia, and Illinois had made unacceptable changes in the wording, as did some of the above states (in addition to the other unacceptable procedures).

When you deduct these 21 states, you only had a proper ratification by only 27 states, far less than the Constitutionally-mandated 36. Because of his diligence, Benson was arrested and imprisoned on income tax charges, but later released.

The Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression

The Federal Reserve Board held a secret meeting on May 18, 1920, to plan a depression. Large banks began calling in loans, causing stocks to drop from a high of 138.12 in 1919, to a low of 66.24 in 1921. When the value of government bonds plummeted, they were forced to call in even more loans. When thousands of the banks’ customers could not pay their notes, the banks seized their assets.

After 1922, profits rose, and with the Federal Reserve’s ability to lend ten times more than their reserves, credit was easily obtained. From 1923 to 1929, $8 billion was sliced off of the deficit. The Reserve expanded the money supply by 62%, and this excess money was used to bid the stock market up to fantastic heights. The media began publicizing that there was an enormous profit to be made from the stock market. This push was planned at a meeting of the International Bankers in 1926, who made the boom possible, and who was going to bring about financial disaster later.

In 1928, the House hearings on the “Stabilization of the Purchasing Power of the Dollar”, revealed that the Federal Reserve Board had met with the heads of various European central banks at a secret luncheon in 1927 to plan what they believed might be a major crash. On February 6, 1929, after Montagu Norman, Chairman of the Bank of England, came to the United States to meet with Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of Treasury, the Reserve reversed its monetary policy by raising the discount rate, and during the next few months, after Paul Warburg had issued a tip in March, 1929, Illuminati members, who knew what the future held, got their money out of the stock market, reinvesting it in gold and silver. In the year before the crash, 500 banks failed.

On October 24, 1929, the New York banking establishment began calling in their loans, forcing their customers to sell stock at ridiculously low prices in order to pay off the loans. Stock prices fell by 90%, and U.S. Securities lost $26 billion. Thousands of smaller banks and insurance companies went bankrupt, and people who had been millionaires, were now broke. To prolong the depression after the crash, from 1929 to 1933 the Reserve began to reduce the money flow by one-third.

The Great Depression, as it became known, was engineered by the Illuminati to take money from the people, and to make them dependent on the Government through the subsequent New Deal programs of Roosevelt. Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee said:

“It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence … The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”

In his book My Exploited Father-in-Law, Curtis Dall (son-in-law of Franklin D. Roosevelt) wrote:

“The depression was the calculated “shearing” of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market … The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.”

To a limited extent, this same method was used to create minor “depressions” in 1937, 1948, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1966, 1970, and 1979.

The Federal Government Siezes Power from the States

According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Congress shall have power … to exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful building…”

This passage reveals the true intention of our forefathers, which was for the Federal Government to coordinate the efforts of all the States in order to combine their resources when it came to things like trade and defense, since the States were actually like separate countries. Therefore, the Congress only had jurisdiction over the area of Washington, D.C.; territories like Alaska and Hawaii (before they became states); present [non-state territories] of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and others; and Federal property such as military bases. This area [of jurisdiction] will be hereinafter referred to as the “District” (as in the District of Columbia), as it is in the United States Code (see 26 USC 7701(a)(1), and 26 USC 3121(e)(1)).

Since America is a Republic, and not a democracy, the Government has a responsibility to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, as granted by the Constitution, rather than to grant privileges, known as civil rights, which are decided by the will of the majority. When the sovereign state citizen gave power to the State Constitution, which created State Government; this in turn gave power to the U.S. Constitution, which created the Federal Government; which has, in a sense, incorporated and gave power to the United States Government; which has turned the U.S. citizen into a subject of the U.S. Government. Therefore, the Federal Government has been able to wield its influence over the entire country, rather than just the area referred to as the District.

This is possible, because, for all intents and purposes, there are two of every state. For example, the official name of Pennsylvania is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ; but to the U.S. Government, it is known as the State of Pennsylvania. There are even two state flags. One with a gold fringe, which represents the State of Pennsylvania, and martial law under the U.S. Government; and one without the fringe, which represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The gold-fringed flag was reserved for use by the General of the Army, where it was present at military headquarters and displayed at court martials. Its use elsewhere, as a government battle flag, was only to be done at the discretion of the President, within his role as the Commander-in-Chief of the military, to establish the jurisdiction of the military presence. This gold-fringed flag, which is common in many public places, such as courthouses, and schools, is not the national flag which represents our constitutional republic. It is a symbol of federal government jurisdiction.

The Abuse of “Emergency Powers”

When Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, he called for an emergency session of Congress on March 9th, where the “Emergency Banking Relief Act” (also known as the “War Powers Act”, which seized all the country’s constitutional gold and silver coinage) was passed. This gave FDR the power to issue any order and do anything he felt was necessary to run the country, without restriction, by authority of the “Trading with the Enemy Act” of October 6, 1917 (which had placed all German citizens under the authority of the President, because they were enemies of the U.S.).

In 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2, subdivision (c), of the “Trading with the Enemy Act”, defined the Enemy as someone “other than citizens of the United States…” and in 1933, according to Chapter 106, Section 5, subdivision (b), the Act designated as the Enemy “any person within the United States.”

America was under the authority of an emergency war government. According to the book Constitution: Fact or Fiction by Dr. Eugene Schroder (with Micki Nellis), our Constitution was actually nullified on March 9, 1933, when President Franklin Roosevelt declared a national emergency. As recorded in Congressional Record in 1933, Rep. James Buck said: “…the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means it’s dead.” Senate Report 93-549 (Senate Resolution 9, 93rd Congress, 1st Session) in 1973 said that:

“[since 1933] the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency … A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency…”

The Act was never repealed after World War II, [and after] Roosevelt died, Truman used the extraordinary powers he gained through the rewriting of the War Powers Act to establish the National Security infrastructure, which included the C.I.A. [See the National Security Act of 1947 –ed]

The “national emergency” technically ended on September 14, 1976, when the 93rd Congress passed H.R. 3884, the “National Emergencies Termination Act” (50 USC 1601, Public Law 94-412) in response to President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the “Trading with the Enemy Act”, which was part of Roosevelt’s emergency legislation. Though he had promised an end to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, he actually escalated the war by authorizing the secret bombing of Cambodia. And then later, in December, 1972, Nixon ordered American B-52’s to drop over 36,000 tons of bombs over Haiphong and Hanoi. Congress then appointed the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-ID), who began having hearings in July, 1973. Even though it appeared that the emergency legislation was repealed, the last paragraph said that it didn’t apply to any “authorities under the act of October 6, 1917, as amended.”

Chuck Morse wrote in his article “Is the ‘National Emergency of FDR’ Still In Place?” that:

“This was a classic example of sleight of hand. In fact, Congress exempted all laws, based on the emergency of 1933 that were already in place. Rather than being based on the authority of the President under a ‘national emergency’ these federal laws would now be codified as a permanent part of the U.S. Federal Code. Included among the codified laws would be Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which classifies the American citizen as an enemy of the government.”

The declaration of a National Emergency can legally empower the President to suspend the Constitution. According to Senate Report 93-549:

“[the] President may: Seize property, organize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute Martial Law, seize and control transportation and communication, regulate operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

President Carter declared a new national emergency in 1979 during the Iranian hostage crisis, and Bill Clinton, during his two terms in office, declared 12 National Emergencies. A 1976 Senate report noted that there were 470 extraordinary grants of power to the President, during times of National Emergency. [Those powers have since been expanded by the 2001 “Patriot Act” and successors –ed]

The U.S. Federal Government is a Bankrupt Entity

Because of Executive Orders 6073, 6102 (gold confiscation), 6111, 6260 and 6262 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it is believed that the District went bankrupt in 1933, and since then, has undergone various “reorganizations.” The Secretary of Treasury was appointed “receiver” in the bankruptcy (Reorganization Plan, No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903; Public Law 94-564; Legislative History, pg. 5967). Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., of Ohio, according to the Congressional Record (pg. H1303), on March 17, 1993, said:

“Mr. Speaker, we are now in Chapter 11 [bankruptcy]. Members of Congress are official Trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the United States government…”

It was in 1933 that FDR enacted the “Social Security Act”, which effectively redefined the word “employee” to indicate “government worker.” Then came the “Public Salary Tax Act” in 1939, which gave the U.S. Government the power to levy a tax on those people who were either government employees, or who lived and worked in a “Federal Area.” A year later, the Buck Act was passed, which gave the U.S. Government the power to create a “Federal Area” so they could levy the Public Salary Tax. Since it was unconstitutional to tax anyone outside of the jurisdiction of the District, this Act, in Section 110(d) and (e), made the land within the territorial boundaries of a State, a “Federal Area.” This, in effect, created a paper state, known as a Federal Area, for the purposes of the U.S. Government; and those people who were sovereign state citizens, now found themselves also living in this Federal Area. Now the U.S. Government had to make that citizen one of their subjects by bringing them under the jurisdiction of the District.

This was accomplished by deceiving the citizen into entering an adhesion contract with the U.S. Government, such as a Social Security application, an Income Tax form, a Driver’s License application, a Bank Account application, and other similar things. Contrary to what most people believe, it is not mandatory to apply for a Social Security number; however, in order for a sovereign state citizen to be eligible for Social Security benefits, they have to waive the rights given to them under our Republic.

Probably, the most incredible example of the adhesion contract is the Income Tax system. In 1884, it was accepted that the “property which every man has is his own labor (and) as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.” Therefore, since “wages” are received as compensation for labor, it can not be legally taxed. “Income” is the process of profiting from a business (someone else’s labor) or investments, and is taxable, as in [the case of] a Corporation, which is an artificial entity which is given the right to exist by the State. The Constitution only allows the Congress to collect uniform “excise” taxes on things involving interstate commerce, such as gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, telephone bills, firearms, and tires. The payment of these taxes is voluntary, because they are based on consumption. These funds go directly to the U.S. Treasury to pay the expenses of the Federal government.

Because we live in a Republic, the Internal Revenue Service Code, Title 26 USC, could not be passed into law by the Congress, and instead, was passed only as a Resolution, which is a formal expression of intent that was to pertain only to citizens of the District. So, how do they make you a citizen of the District? In the upper left-hand corner of the 1040 Federal Income Tax form is a place to put your preprinted address label, which is designated with the words “label here.” However, to the left of that is the word “label,” which seemingly identifies the entire section as a whole. However, the word “label” actually has another legal meaning that has nothing to do with your name and address. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “label” is defined as: “A slip of ribbon, parchment, or paper, attached as a codicil to a deed or other writing to hold the appended seal.” Since your “seal” is your signature, the “label” is actually a codicil which indicates you are waiving your constitutional right as a sovereign state citizen to become a citizen of the District and its Federal Area.

The IRS is a Private Collection Agency for the Fed

The Internal Revenue Service is considered to be a Bureau of the Department of the Tresaury; however, like the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the Federal Government (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391), and in fact was incorporated in Delaware in 1933. It is pointed out that all official Federal Government mail is sent postage-free because of the franking privilege, however, the IRS has to pay their own postage, which indicates that they are not a government entity.

They are in fact a collection agency for the Federal Reserve, because they do not collect any taxes for the U.S. Treasury. All funds collected are turned over to the Federal Reserve. If you have ever sent a check to the IRS, you will find that it was endorsed over to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, in turn, deposits the money with the International Monetary Fund, an agency of the United Nations (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, pg. 816), where it is filtered down to the International Development Association (see Treasury Delegation Order No. 91), which is part of the “International Bank for Reconstruction and Development”, commonly known as the World Bank. Therefore, it is now clear that the American people are unknowingly contributing to the coming World Government.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the “Governor” of the International Monetary Fund (Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942; U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-81; 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11); Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10). The United States has not had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch. 214, pg. 654) and for all intents and purposes the U.S. Treasury is the IMF (Presidential Documents, Volume 29, No. 4, pg. 113; 22 U.S.C. 285-288).

Chief Justice John Marshall said: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Alan Keyes, the former ambassador to the U.N., who ran for President in 2000 said:

“We ought to have realized that the income tax is utterly incompatible with liberty. It is actually a form of slavery. A slave is someone the fruit of whose labor is controlled by somebody else. A slave is not somebody with nothing. Rather, he has only what the master lets him have …Under the income tax, the government takes whatever percentage of the earner’s income it wants. The income tax, therefore, represents our national surrender to the government of control over all the money we earn. There are, in principle, no restrictions to the pre-emptive claim the government has.”

The income tax was intended to rob the earnings of the low and middle class; or as the saying goes, “the more you make, the more they take.” However, the tax didn’t touch the huge fortunes of Illuminati members. The tax was an indication that the U.S. was heading for a planned war, because they couldn’t go into a war without money. Since the tax provided less than 5% of total Federal revenues, increases were later made to accommodate World War I, FDR’s New Deal, and World War II. In July, 1943, workers in this country were subject to a payroll withholding tax in the form of a “victory tax” that was touted as a temporary tax to boost the economy because of the War, and would later be discontinued. However, the payroll deduction remained because it forced compliance.

Table of Contents

13.4.07

The Secret War Against Iran

Backtracking to 9/11, for those of you familiar with the day's actual events before and after, Pakistani Intelligence chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was wining and dining with US Officials, Cheney et. al.

It should come as no surprise that we would cross a line over into Iran and engage in business with them, as they have done for so many years.

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran

April 03, 2007 5:25 PM

Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

Iran_militant_group_nr A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan.

The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.

Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.

Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.

They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.

The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.

A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.

Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context.

Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

11.4.07

3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'

What a freaking idiot.
Last summer he read a book about a czar, now he wants to have one.

Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; Page A01

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

(We have a war going no where, that serves only the Bush regime's agenda)

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.

The administration's interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.

The highest-ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the wars is deputy national security adviser Meghan O'Sullivan, who reports to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and does not have power to issue orders to agencies. O'Sullivan plans to step down soon, giving the White House the opportunity to rethink how it organizes the war effort.

Unlike O'Sullivan, the new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Besides Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested. Ralston declined to comment; Keane confirmed he declined the offer, adding: "It was discussed weeks ago."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?"

All three generals who declined the job have been to varying degrees administration insiders. Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, was one of the primary proponents of sending more troops to Iraq and presented Bush with his plan for a major force increase during an Oval Office meeting in December. The president adopted the concept in January, although he did not dispatch as many troops as Keane proposed.

Ralston, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was named by Rice last August to serve as her special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Sheehan, a 35-year Marine, served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration and at one point was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East.


CONTINUED 1 2 Next

2.4.07

Why George Bush is Insane

I Love this guy!

Why George Bush is Insane

By Harold Pinter

03/30/07 "Assassinated Press "

"Earlier this year I had a major operation for cancer. The operation and its after-effects were something of a nightmare. I felt I was a man unable to swim bobbing about under water in a deep dark endless ocean. But I did not drown and I am very glad to be alive. However, I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and belligerence; the most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world. "If you are not with us you are against us" President Bush has said. He has also said "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you.

The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke.

The United States believes that the three thousand deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence.

The three thousand deaths in Afghanistan are never referred to.

The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead through US and British sanctions which have deprived them of essential medicines are never referred to.

The effect of depleted uranium, used by America in the Gulf War, is never referred to. Radiation levels in Iraq are appallingly high. Babies are born with no brain, no eyes, no genitals. Where they do have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is blood.

The two hundred thousand deaths in East Timor in 1975 brought about by the Indonesian government but inspired and supported by the United States are never referred to.

The half a million deaths in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Argentina and Haiti, in actions supported and subsidised by the United States are never referred to.

The millions of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are no longer referred to.

The desperate plight of the Palestinian people, the central factor in world unrest, is hardly referred to.

But what a misjudgment of the present and what a misreading of history this is.

People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget. They strike back.

The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of the United States over many years, in all parts of the world.

In Britain the public is now being warned to be "vigilant" in preparation for potential terrorist acts. The language is in itself preposterous.

How will - or can - public vigilance be embodied? Wearing a scarf over your mouth to keep out poison gas? However, terrorist attacks are quite likely, the inevitable result of our Prime Minister's contemptible and shameful subservience to the United States. Apparently a terrorist poison gas attack on the London Underground system was recently prevented. But such an act may indeed take place. Thousands of school children travel on the London Underground every day. If there is a poison gas attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister. Needless to say, the Prime Minister does not travel on the underground himself.

The planned war against Iraq is in fact a plan for premeditated murder of thousands of civilians in order, apparently, to rescue them from their dictator.

The United States and Britain are pursuing a course which can lead only to an escalation of violence throughout the world and finally to catastrophe.

It is obvious, however, that the United States is bursting at the seams to attack Iraq. I believe that it will do this - not just to take control of Iraqi oil - but because the US administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government but seem to be helpless.

Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist US power Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herten's definition (as quoted in the Guardian newspaper in London recently) "We are not the doctors. We are the disease".

Harold Pinter

The Assassinated Press

25.3.07

A Day Of Death; Every Day

For every soldier or Marine who dies in Iraq, at least 20 Iraqis are killed. Some of their stories.

Wathiq Khuzaie / Getty Images for Newsweek
An Accident of War The family of Iraqi journalist Suhad Shakir Fadhil display a picture of her with candles after she was likely mistaken for a bomber by Western security and shot dead

April 2, 2007 issue - Describing Jalal Mustafa to a reporter, the first thing his family mentions is "that long love story of his." The young mechanic's dream was to wed his fiancée, Laila, and "have as many kids as they could." But running a small auto-repair shop, it took Mustafa a long time to save up enough for the wedding, let alone a house. On Feb. 4, he finally went to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license. As he was walking through the gates, a car pulled up next to the building. Before the vehicle came to a full stop, the driver detonated a suicide bomb. Four bystanders died, including Mustafa: burned over much of his body, a piece of shrapnel lodged in his head. The bombing didn't even make the news; it was an ordinary day in Baghdad.

For each U.S. service member killed in Iraq, at least 20 Iraqis die violently. Feb. 4 was no exception. That day in Baghdad, roadside bombs killed four Iraqi policemen in one incident and two soldiers in another, and an Army colonel lost his life to assassins in the southern suburbs. But most of the day's 81 victims of violent deaths—about the usual daily toll this past winter—were civilians like Mustafa, the softest of soft targets. Forty-two of them were gunned down execution style, many of their corpses bearing signs of torture: hallmarks of Shia death squads. Most of the other deaths appeared to be the work of Sunni and Al Qaeda extremists. NEWSWEEK talked to the families of four of the Feb. 4 victims. Among them were a street vendor, a former TV journalist and a truck-parts dealer. Two were Shia, and two were Sunni. And in each case their families lost not only loved ones but breadwinners. None of their killers has been identified:

Jawad Jasem, 44, was serving a customer at his pushcart outside the courthouse when the bomb exploded. The son of a poor Shia farmer, Jasem had wanted to be an engineer. When he was 18, family friends got him into the Air Force, where he earned good money working on jets—until the Army, desperate for infantrymen in the war with Iran, sent him to the front. He was wounded four times. He was not allowed to return to civilian life after the war, even though he had a wife and five children. "He used to tell everyone that the last day of his military service would be the happiest day of his life," says his younger brother, Kareem, a shopkeeper. "He said he'd celebrate with a great party in which he would make a feast for the entire city."

It didn't turn out that way. His last day of duty was April 8, 2003, when U.S. troops entered Baghdad. Jawad was among thousands of Iraqi soldiers who stripped off their uniforms and fled.

He started over, buying his pushcart and setting up in front of the courthouse. He built a good business. It was a predominantly Shia neighborhood, but the bomber killed members of both sects indiscriminately. "Evil has no eyes," says Kareem Jasem. "Jawad's shop had turned into just a big hole ... and his body was smashed into a wall."

Abdul Salam, 47, was a pious Sunni who believed in sectarian harmony. The father of six, he had refused to join Saddam's Army, and worked instead in defense factories. After the invasion, he started a truck-parts business; he hired two Shia apprentices and set up shop in Al Yousifiyah, a mostly Sunni suburb. Driving home from work one night with his two assistants, Salam stopped at a police checkpoint. A van full of gunmen pulled up and abducted all three. Shia friends tried to intercede for Salam at the local Mahdi Army office, but on Feb. 4, Salam's corpse was found dumped in a field a few miles from his home, shot repeatedly in the head and chest. His Shia apprentices were freed. "He was beloved by his friends, colleagues and all of his neighbors, most of them Shiites," says Salam's brother, Naser Zaidan. "He used to say Islam is the unifier of Iraqis."

For Suhad Shakir, 36, her new job was a dream come true. She had always wanted to work with Americans, and she loved helping people. Last September she quit her post as a journalist at state-owned TV and jumped at an opening with the Iraqi Assistance Center, a Coalition-run office in the Green Zone that works with U.S. and Iraqi agencies to provide social services. It seemed safer than reporting, and it paid better.

On Feb. 4 she was on her way to work, waiting in the queue at a checkpoint near an entrance to the Green Zone which is often targeted by suicide bombers. Shakir was in the slow lane, for Iraqi cars that are subject to careful searches. A convoy of armored vehicles came roaring up and got stuck at the checkpoint. One of the bodyguards in the first vehicle threw a bottle of water at the driver in front of Shakir to signal him to move. The driver panicked and backed into Shakir's car. She tried to get out of the way but backed into the car behind her. Someone aboard the fourth vehicle in the convoy, seeing Shakir's sudden move, opened fire, hitting her once. The vehicle slowed and a goateed Westerner in khaki leaned out his window and shot her again in the face at close range. Then the convoy raced off into the Green Zone.

Iraqi cops think Shakir's killer mistook her for a suicide bomber, but they say they're continuing to investigate. "It is very important I know why she is killed and who killed her," said Shakir's mother, Salima Kadhim, dressed in black a month after her daughter's death. Like many Iraqis, she still waits.

With Salih Mehdi and Ahmed Obeidi in Baghdad

24.3.07

Bush criticizes Democrats after vote on Iraq

Bush has NO ROOM to talk about wasting money! This fool is actually clueless.

WASHINGTON - President Bush accused the Democratic-led Congress of wasting taxpayers’ time picking fights with the White House instead of resolving disputes over money for U.S. troops and the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush called on Democratic leaders in Congress to move beyond political discord and take bipartisan action on both issues that have driven a wedge between the Bush administration and Capitol Hill.

He urged them to accept his offer to allow lawmakers to interview his advisers about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors ­— but not under oath — and provide documents detailing communications they had about the firings with outside parties.


Democrats, armed with subpoenas for Bush’s top political adviser Karl Rove and other top aides, are pressing the White House to allow the advisers to answer questions under oath about the firing of eight federal prosecutors. Bush says the Democrats are simply playing politics, trying to create a media spectacle.

“Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people’s business,” Bush said. “We have many important issues before us. So we need to put partisan politics aside and come together to enact important legislation for the American people.”

The president also accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote on Friday for a war spending bill that requires combat operations to cease before September 2008.

Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.

‘The clock is running’
Bush said the emergency spending bill the House narrowly passed, 218-212, would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need and set an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

“By choosing to make a political statement and passing a bill they know will never become law, the Democrats in Congress have only delayed the delivery of the vital funds and resources our troops need,” Bush said. “The clock is running. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April 15, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions — and so will their families.”

The $124 billion House legislation would pay for war operations this year but would require that combat troops come home before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

Bush said that to get the votes needed to pass the bill, House Democrats included billions of dollars in domestic and pork barrel spending for local congressional districts, including $74 million for peanut storage and $25 million for spinach growers, that has nothing to do with the war.

“Even with all this extra spending tacked on, the vote in the House was very close,” Bush said. “This means that the Democrats do not have enough votes to override my veto.”

He obviously wants to go to war with Iran.


22.3.07

Iran Warns It May Ignore Nuclear Rules

Is anyone surprised??


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's supreme leader said Wednesday that Tehran will pursue nuclear activities outside international regulations if the U.N. Security Council insists it stop uranium enrichment. "Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

Khamenei did not elaborate on what "illegal actions" could be pursued by Tehran, which faces new Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt enrichment.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - the agreement under which U.N. inspections are held.

Khamenei warned the United States that Iran will "use all its capacities to strike" if his country is attacked.

"If they want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack," Khamenei told the nation in an address marking the first day of Nowruz, or the Persian New Year.

Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - have drawn up new sanctions to punish Iran for rejecting U.N. demands to halt enrichment - a process that can produce fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a nuclear warhead.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of intending to build nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for generating electricity.

Ambassadors from the 15 Security Council nations held informal discussions at Britain's U.N. Mission in New York ahead of a meeting to discuss possible changes to the draft sanctions resolution.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, meanwhile, said his country "will not support excessive sanctions against Iran," and added that the draft resolution has been softened at Moscow's behest.

The sanctions in the draft resolution would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs - about a third linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps.

The package also calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.

Lavrov said broader restrictions on officials' travel, and a ban on "credits" to Iran, had been softened on Russia's advice. He did not specify what type of credits he was discussing.

"We ... have agreed to influence Iran by gradually applying proportionate pressure," Lavrov said.

European and U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks said Tuesday that Moscow had bluntly told Tehran it would not ship fuel for the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran until Tehran freezes its uranium enrichment program.

Lavrov denied that.

"It's not the first time that we are seeing such an unscrupulous approach aimed at driving a wedge between us and Iran," he told lawmakers in the lower house of parliament. "There is no link whatsoever between the U.N. resolution ... and the implementation of the Bushehr project."

Russia has said plans to supply fuel for Bushehr this month were called off because of Iranian payment delays that prompted Moscow to indefinitely postpone the reactor's September launch. Russian officials also said that the number of workers at Bushehr had dwindled due to the funding shortage.

Iran angrily denied falling behind in payments and accused Russia of caving in to U.S. pressure to take a tougher line on Tehran.

Iranian state television on Tuesday described Russia as an "unreliable partner," adding: "It is clear that Russia has stopped construction of this plant under pressure and for political reasons."

Associated Press Writer Vladimir Isachenkov contributed to this report from Moscow.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

23.2.07

Cheney's Speech at Vilnius

Cheney's Speech at Vilnius -- You Gotta Love It!

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Dick Cheney can talk the talk. He gets it, he really does. It's just too bad he has to hide out in Lithuania when he speaks the truth. Americans today really need to hear what he has to say, and it is doubtful he'll repeat these words here at home.

Here's some of what he had to say, as he addressed the Eastern European and Baltic attendees:

"This progress [of freedom] would not have been possible without leadership -- from patriots with names like Sakharov, Mindszenty, Walesa, Havel -- who, in decades of striving, challenged dictators, spoke the truth without apology, and refused to compromise their liberty. "

Somehow, I am thinking that Cheney can't imagine mentioning American names like Ray McGovern, Richard Clark, Tony Zinni, Cindy Sheehan, West Point Graduates Against the Iraq War, etc, in a speech like this one.

There was more! Cheney also said:

"Regimes that repress and tyrannize their own people also threaten the peace and the stability of other lands. They feed rivalries and hatreds to obscure their own failings. They seek to impose their will by force, and they make our world more dangerous....Free peoples do not live in endless deprivation, tending old grievances, growing in their resentments, and posing threats to others. Free peoples do not dwell on every disagreement and conflict of the past; rather, they see the possibilities of the future, and turn their creative gifts to building a better tomorrow." We Americans need to hear these words--they ring true in America today.

Cheney then told the crowd at Vilnius:

"Democracy starts with citizens casting their votes, but that is only the beginning. Elections must be fair, and regular, and truly competitive. Men and women must be free to speak their minds -- and here a simple test is proposed by the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky: "Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm? If he can, then that person is living in a free society. If not, it's a fear society." Americans familiar with any recent presidential elections in America, this administration's unconstitutional "free-speech zones," those who have been thrown out of public spaces for a political message written on a T-Shirt, or who have been physically or legally threatened or smeared for speaking his or her mind may find it hard to believe that Cheney said these words. Well, to be fair, he didn't say them to us -- he was talking to the folks in Lithuania. Or was that Lilliput?

I couldn't believe he said this!

"Protecting civil society and upholding individual freedom requires the rule of law -- and that is at the very heart of government's reason for being. Government meets this obligation by ensuring an independent judiciary, a professional legal establishment, and honest, competent law enforcement." I imagine that many good people in Congress, the judiciary and the Justice Department can't either.

And you won't believe he said this:

"Leaders must also persevere in fighting the two greatest enemies of economic progress -- bureaucratic roadblocks and official corruption. If the private sector is to thrive and to generate jobs, then entrepreneurs must be free to start companies, to hire workers, and do business without unreasonable interference or favoritism. And the only way for an economy to consistently attract commerce and investment is to root out corruption at every level, and to require openness, transparency, and accountability in the systems of business and government."

Yes, that was Mr. Dick "Halliburton" Cheney, at your service.

Cheney was in fine form, at last, when he lectured Russia. Without a hint of irony, he stated, "In many areas of civil society -- from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties -- the [Russian] government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people. Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries. No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."

He said it, folks. And not a reporter in the world will call him on any of it. This speech, full of sound and fury, as Shakespeare noted in another sad time for a government characterized by banality, greed and self-righteousness, was a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

We should not settle for this speech only in Vilnius. Why doesn't Dick Cheney come to St. Louis, or Boston, or Atlanta, or New Orleans, or Los Angeles or Portland or Miami and give this speech? We know the answer. If he did so, while Cheney would still be a corrupt and forgettable Vice President, a speech like this one might mean something. It might even be revolutionary.

Photobucket