by Mark Yannone
Clearly, impeachment is not a tool for punishing George W. Bush, for other, more serious perils await him when he has vacated the White House. Rather, impeachment is a remedy for the people who would choose to enforce the law and rid themselves of a tyrant. Our failure to employ this remedy now would risk making impeachment impossible in the future.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
by Mark Yannone
Monday, July 28, 2008
by Mark Yannone
An unknown like Barack Hussein Obama was able to command the media's complete attention and upstage a well-known, highly desirable presidential candidate such as Ron Paul. That leaves many people scratching their heads, wondering how that could happen. They wonder where our investigative journalists are.
I know where the ones I consider important are; I read them daily, or at least weekly. Now I've figured out where the investigative journalists went that others considered important. All of the investigative members of the old news media had plenty to say when the first two buildings came down that morning but not a word about WTC 7, so they must have been in World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. EST on September 11, 2001.
I hope that helps.
"Nuclear weapons are so 20th century."
by Mark Yannone
Contrary to MSNBC's report, Iran's stance is not new. Iran's position has been consistent. The United States federal government has decided to be less confrontational, acknowledging that an attack on Iran would be nothing but disastrous for everyone.
by Mark Yannone
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Congress poured more sand into America's stalling economic engine. At every opportunity the United States federal government punishes productivity and encourages runaway inflation. This 600-page bill is another example of the many deliberate efforts made by the federal government to kill this economy. This one should do it.
Ron Paul on the passage of the Housing Bill
Update: Plan to Restore Constitutional Order
Will Rep. Ron Paul Provide Redress?
by Bob Schulz
This nation is rushing headlong into debt, dependency, and decay. Unconstitutional acts have become the precedent for more of the same, which become precedent for still further acts of despotism.
Can the People elect their way out of such tyranny?
Unfortunately, no! It is not possible, as Ron Paul's candidacy has proven. Every time he exposed the constitutional truth regarding an issue (e.g., the undeclared Iraq war and the Federal Reserve System) he lost a block of voters who possess a vested interest in the status quo.
What then is the solution?
A forceful defense of the Constitution! This nation's major problems would all but disappear if one tenth of one percent of the people (i.e., 300,000) decided to collectively force the leaders of the political branches of the federal government to honor their oaths of office and abide by the federal Constitution.
Can the people, without violence, force the government to follow the Constitution?
Yes, by claiming and exercising their individual, First Amendment Right of Redress: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the Right of the People . . . to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances."
What was the Framers' intent behind this clause?
The historical record is clear and totally uncontroverted: The purpose of the Petition clause was to be the "accountability" clause – the clause by which the people could peaceably hold the government accountable to the rest of the Constitution. It was meant to be the "capstone right" that capped all the others, a critical element in the overall balance of power between the people and the government.
How was it intended to work?
If the people petition the government for redress of violations of the Constitution and the government refuses to respond, the people have the right to withdraw their allegiance and support from the government, without retaliation. [Full story]
Friday, July 25, 2008
by Mark Yannone
An attorney has issued a call to arms? When an attorney does something as uncharacteristic as issuing a call to arms, surely the thinking members of the US citizenry should sit up and take notice, don't you think? Something unusual must be happening.
The lawyer's name is Dickstein--Jeffrey Dickstein--and he is providing his considerable legal services free of charge in this case. That alone would be enough to reverse the rotation of the earth. Something serious is afoot.
Meet Joe Banister, former investigator of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS. In his independent search for truth he encountered Bill Benson, as follows.
Bill Benson had discovered a huge federal lie. The 16th Amendment was never ratified, yet the IRS was using it as their justification for tax law enforcement. Imagine that: law enforcement without a law. Bill Benson thought Americans should know about that, so he wrote a book, The Law That Never Was, which describes what he found.
That made the IRS hyperventilate, so they charged him with running an illegal tax shelter. The government also offered him a lot of money and special favors in exchange for his evidence. Soon after that, the gauntlet was picked up by attorney Jeffrey Dickstein, who tells the story here. As you can see from the many docket entries (157 to date), this fraud case has generated a lot of paper over the years.
Meanwhile, the evidence against the government was mounting, and the government was refusing to talk. As credible witnesses came forth with solid evidence of government fraud, the government behaved like a cornered criminal. Instead of obeying the law, the Constitution, according to their sworn oaths of office, government employees ignored the law, violated the law, and fired any other government employee who blew the whistle on them.
Tyranny had arrived in America, and attorney Jeffrey Dickstein wasn't going to tolerate it. As he says, "if we don't take a stand, together, we lose. It's that simple. The Bill Benson litigation is, perhaps, the single most important litigation in the court today."
Considering the government corruption the many members of the Tax Honesty Movement have uncovered, it's no wonder that a watchful attorney has issued this call to arms.
See also: Joe Banister interviews Bill Benson and Jeffrey Dickstein, 12/01/07. [Listen] 32:38
The Benson Case Moves to the Court of Appeals
Why is this case so important? Consider the enormity of the questions it poses:
- Is the federal government required to obey the Constitution when amending the Constitution? The federal government has behaved as though the correct answer is no.
- When the federal government commits fraud, will we insist on our right to speak up and reveal the fraud? Will you?
- When we reveal government fraud, will we allow ourselves to be silenced by government accusations? We cannot be cowardly and free.
"The court refused to admit into evidence, and consider, certified documents from State and National Archives that would be admissible in any other case. In so doing, it violated the due process clause and creates a new and evil precedent for trials in America; prosecuting one for making a statement it doesn't like and preventing the person from presenting facts in defense because the facts prove the statement is true.
"Equally appalling to me is the attack on the First Amendment right of Benson to state his opinion and the right of his listeners to decide for themselves whether he is telling the truth or not." -Jeffrey A. Dickstein
04/07/08 Benson's Opening Brief (pdf)
06/25/08 Government's Reply (pdf)
07/25/08 Benson's Reply Brief (pdf)
08/05/08 Benson's Objection to Time Delay (pdf)
08/06/08 Benson's Objection and Motions (htm)
08/14/08 Benson's Motions Denied (htm)
08/22/08 Government's Response Brief (pdf)
The next step is for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to either make a ruling or set a hearing date for oral argument.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
It was better than "Sieg Heil!"
by Mark Yannone
While running for President of Europe, Barack Obama instructed the rest of the world to "look at Berlin!" for some unknown reason. Then, continuing his imitation of Miss Teen South Carolina, this came out of his mouth:
"In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common."Too late. He couldn't stop himself. This nonsense slipped out too:
"In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth."The last time I can recall hearing voices deriding and denying the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future was . . . let's see now . . . never. In fact, I distinctly recall suggesting that we might need NATO forces to take aim at Washington, DC, to protect us from war criminal George W. Bush and our lickspittle Congress.
Anyway, I don't think Obama is going to be President of Europe any time soon. "These were platitudes gone too far," said one German listener, 40-year-old Kai Diers. "It wasn't a great speech, but maybe it wasn't directed at us, but at America." [Source]
Maybe you just sampled life in Idiocracy, Kai. That's a good bet too.
Ron Paul responded to this lunacy by raising one eyebrow. A little.
Printed by gangsters, backed by terrorists
by Mark Yannone
"The entire US banking system is insolvent," said Mike "Mish" Shedlock, summing up his latest article, "Evidence of the US Banking System Teetering on the Brink of Collapse."
That's funny. What a riot. I almost hurt myself laughing. It was one of those coffee-through-the-nose-all-over-the-monitor-choking-gagging-ROFL moments.
The banking system is insolvent? Help me Lord, I'm dyin'!
What's so damn funny, you ask?
The banking system is working as designed -- fraudulently -- and we've known about this money, banking, and taxing fraud for 95 years. This insolvency isn't something that just happened. Insolvency is actually a design feature. Take a look:
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
A Sobering Moment of Contemplation
by Tommy K. Cryer
In 1772 the American Revolution started with its first significant act of resistance, not at Concord, not in Boston harbor, but in an otherwise nondescript and unmarked stretch of sand and water in Rhode Island.
The scene was in an unpronounceable bay in tiny Rhode Island where the people had been terrorized, abused, and subjected to plunder and theft by the H.M.S. Gaspee, a ship sent by the king to impress upon the people of Rhode Island the futility of objecting to British taxation.
The Gaspee and its cruel master and crew wasted no time. Considering their mission punitive rather than for enforcement, they applied imaginary taxes to those who owed none, taking whatever they chose and imposing unsubstantiated "taxes" on anyone unfortunate enough to catch their attention. Sound familiar to anyone?
The locals soon tired of this ill treatment and determined to do something about it, providing the first coordinated act of defiance to unlawful and unjust taxation and to the authority of the crown. They lured the Gaspee into running aground at a place now called Gaspee Point, Rhode Island. There they boarded the ship, seized the captain and crew, and reclaimed their money and property. Then they put the ship to the torch, burning it to the water line.
Larry Becraft and I had occasion to visit the very site of this historic event, the true place of conception, if not birth, of our great nation. When one stops to think about what has since transpired, of all the sacrifices to obtain our independence and then to defend and secure it, all beginning right where we stood, one cannot but pause and reflect reverently:
by Lindsey Williams
Get the real scoop on peak oil, the dollar, gold, Iraq, Iran, and your near-term future.
Continue:       
See also: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
by Mark Yannone
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has the mistaken idea that he needs our approval to honor his oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When he was elected and sworn into office, he got all of the authority he needed. He has no need of our petitions or emails to honor his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against such well-publicized crimes.
Second, Dennis Kucinich and far too many Americans need to be taught that this is a republic, not a democracy.
Third, this action is five years too late for 27 million Iraqis, 304 million Americans, and the other 6.4 billion people who are affected by the Bush administration's war crimes.
The Nuclear Wasteland Tour
See America's murder-suicide
by Mark Yannone
Employees of the governments of the United States and various European countries are trying to coerce Iran into halting their uranium enrichment, citing nuclear weapons production as a legitimate excuse. [Source] What's wrong with that picture?
1. Iran is within its rights to pursue nuclear energy production and the requisite uranium enrichment.
2. The more nuclear energy Iran produces, the less the pressure on world oil supplies.
3. Radiation contamination is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to control and is unacceptable to all parties, including Iran. One notable exception is the United States, which has already permanently contaminated the Middle East and Eastern Europe with thousands of tons of depleted uranium 238 as well as plutonium and enriched uranium 234, 235, 236, and 238. The United States federal government has also sold radioactive munitions to many other countries that may not have been fully informed about their purchases.
The genie is out of the bottle and he's not going back in. Radioactive pollution knows no bounds. It is carried in the air and the water. We eat it, drink it, and breathe it. It doesn't respect borders. It is unaffected by politics. And unprotected by social status, kings will die as readily and as horribly as peons. The government that has committed financial suicide at home is finishing the job by ending all life on earth.
4. The detailed record of Chernobyl should be lesson enough for all. Filatova Elena Vladimirovna has reminded us in her journals, year after year, that this world is now too small for nuclear accidents.
5. Iran has all the incentive and information it needs to exercise its sovereign power judiciously, without prompting from any other government, particularly from the United States, a government that surrendered its wisdom and moral high ground many millions of innocent lives ago, a government that condemned more than a quarter of a million American soldiers to permanent disabilty in Gulf War I alone. The effects of nuclear contamination are so devastating to all that war is indeed obsolete.
Using Depleted Uranium as a Weapon
It Happened in Chernobyl
Monday, July 21, 2008
What is the moral justification for nationalized health care, baseball, and kielbasa?
by Craig J. Cantoni
My family and I recently made our annual pilgrimage to a professional baseball game, or to be more accurate, a feedlot. We were surrounded by corpulence that pressed in on us from all sides, making us feel claustrophobic, as if we were going to be smothered by rolls of fat.
The family to our left was so overweight that I kept thinking about nationalized health care instead of concentrating on the game, futilely trying to find a moral and philosophical justification for the obese family wanting to charge others for the medical costs of their gluttony. Maybe you can provide one for me.
First, more about the family: Mom, dad, and junior began feeding during batting practice and continued eating until the game ended, devouring polish sausages, cheese-smothered nachos, popcorn, ice cream, and my wife's purse. Okay, I fibbed about the last one.
The three of them overflowed their seats like dough that overflows an overfilled baking tin. Judging by their clothes, tattoos, and conversation, they were working-class or below. The mother, whose upper arms were larger than my thighs, was on her cell phone for most of the game, munching and talking simultaneously. To compare, my wife, teenage son, and I didn't use our cell phones once, because we share 500 minutes a month and thus have to manage our calls carefully. Even with our frugality, our monthly phone, Internet, and cable TV bills are over $200, with taxes accounting for a big chunk of the cost.
Considering the exorbitant cost of tickets, parking, food, and drinks, the rotund family probably spent $300 at the baseball game. If the nation is reeling from high gas and food prices, the family showed no evidence of it. For that matter, there was no evidence of it anywhere. Judging by the amount of flesh on display at the stadium, Americans could cut their food consumption and costs by 65 percent and still not go hungry.
I use the word "stadium" lightly, for sitting in a modern baseball stadium is like being inside a video game. Lights flash, sound effects blast, a TV screen the size of Indianapolis distracts, and a public-address announcer on amphetamines yells. Still, the incessant sound of munching could be heard over the din, like a plague of locusts devouring crops.
Anyway, back to the moral and philosophical question. My mind went through its file cabinet of philosophers, social justice theories, and negative and positive rights; but could not come up with a moral justification for the fat family eating their way to diabetes and heart disease and then voting for nationalized health care so that the frugal and fit pay their medical bills, thus allowing them to continue spending money on cell phones, baseball games, and kielbasa.
A compelling justification could not be found in the writings of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Herder, Marx, Lenin, Christ, or others. Nor could it be found in the speeches of Barack Obama and other modern-day socialists.
Did I miss something? Is there a moral justification, and if so, what is it?
An author, columnist, and former baseball fan, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at email@example.com.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
by Mark Yannone
"Fair and balanced" was tossed overboard and devoured by sharks a long time ago, but Fox News doesn't yet realize that it has become a comedy show. The news babes should be laughing their fool heads off.
Check out Laura Ingraham's routine. She doesn't exactly guffaw as Craig Cantoni fantasizes, but will "Are you kidding me" do?
Watch: Laura Ingraham's train wreck 9:14
The great divide in America isn't racial, political, or socioeconomic
by Craig J. Cantoni
The great divide in America isn't between whites and non-whites, between Democrats and Republicans, or between haves and have-nots. The great divide is between those who coo and those who guffaw when they hear pedantry, platitudes, populism, and pap from politicians and political pundits.
Take a recent comment from Al Gore. He said that more solar energy hits the earth each day than all of the energy used each day. The implication was that our industrialized society could run entirely on solar energy. Upon hearing this, the cooers immediately cooed. At the same time, the "guffawers" guffawed as the following questions instantly came to their minds.
- Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water, and much of the remaining one-third of dry land is used for agriculture or is not suitable for solar panels. If every inch of the available land were covered in solar panels, would enough energy be generated to power our industrialized society?
- Since electricity can't be stored, and since it's nighttime over half the earth and daylight over the other half, are power lines going to be strung across the oceans to bring solar-generated electricity from the daytime half to the nighttime half?
- Is Al Gore going to install solar panels on the wings of the private jets that he uses to travel around the world?
Another example is everything that Barack Obama says about economics. It's all worth a robust guffaw, but many people coo when they hear it. In defense of the cooers, their cooing might not be due to illiteracy in economics. It might be due to their understanding that the sum total of Obama's economic plan is to take money from other people and give it to them. (I don't want to sound self-righteous, for I'd coo, too, for money.)
Republicans have their share of cooers. Many of them call into the Sean "Inanity" Hannity show. "You're a great American," they coo. Actually, Hannity is a great pedantic and is deserving of a raspberry in addition to a guffaw.
Almost all of the big-name political reporters are cooers, as evidenced by the fact that they never guffaw in the faces of politicians. Even Tim Russert -- God bless his soul -- didn't guffaw at politicians worthy of guffaws.
A fantasy: Imagine how politics would change if politicians were met with guffaws instead of coos whenever they said something ridiculous, which is most of the time. For example, picture Katie "Coo-Coo" Couric interviewing Senator Ted Kennedy about health care. Kennedy says, "The market has failed in health care." But instead of cooing as she usually does, Couric responds, "Har-har-har, that's the funniest damn thing I've heard all week. You know that the government killed a consumer market in health care over 60 years ago." Or picture Senator Chris Dodd saying to Jim Lehrer on the PBS News Hour that he's going to fix the housing bubble. Upon hearing that, Lehrer laughs so hard that he falls out of his chair. Picking himself off the floor, Lehrer says, "Give me a break, you lying sack of crap. You caused much of the problem by using Fannie Mae as your political slush fund." Or picture George W. Bush walking to the lectern outside of the White House to give a speech on fiscal conservatism, and the Marine band breaks into guffaws in the middle of "Hail to the Chief."
It may be just a fantasy, but if the nation is to be saved, the great divide must be bridged. Cooers have to learn to be guffawers.
An author, columnist, and professional guffawer, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The grand jury's mission is "to bring to trial those who may be guilty and clear the innocent." Marston's Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 264, 560 P.2d 778, 782 (1977).
Because defendants enjoy few procedural rights before the grand jury, grand juries must be unbiased and independent and must act "independently of either prosecutor or judge." Marston's, 114 Ariz. at 264, 560 P.2d at 782.
Not So Grand Jury
by Mark Yannone
How could a country that has 5 percent of the world's population have nearly 25 percent of the world's prisoners?
Here's how our government employees are getting high prosecution rates in Maricopa County, Arizona.
At 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 July 2008, one fine member of our Phoenix community was about to begin week 4 of 120 days of service as a county grand juror. To the grand juror's surprise, the grand juror was escorted through the halls of justice and into a judge's office, identified by name, and then dismissed by the judge from any further grand jury duty.
Just for the day?
Maybe the grand juror had trouble with the language--couldn't speak much English but could understand most of it pretty well?
No. Apparently, that's not a cause for dismissal or disqualification.
Maybe the grand juror was rambunctious, accusatory, or intimidating to other grand jurors?
No. Besides, that appears to be perfectly acceptable to the court.
Tardy? Absent? Asleep? Requesting special favors or excused absences?
No. Nothing like that.
Blindly obedient? Comatose? Drunk? Insane? Too young or too old?
No. Stop guessing. I'll tell you. (Don't ask me for any names or case details. I don't know them.)
During the previous session of the grand jury, this attentive grand juror asked questions of the witnesses in three cases, and, as a result of the flimsy evidence presented, at least three other jurors voted not to indict in those three cases. In other words, the prosecutor couldn't get the requisite minimum of nine votes to indict from the 12 jurors, did not get the indictments sought, and left the courthouse with no one to prosecute.
Supposedly, the grand juror's questions for the witnesses were reasonable and logical, and the grand juror's demeanor was calm and appropriate. Though the grand juror was frequently attacked by other jurors simply for questioning authority, the other grand jurors were learning by this grand juror's example why they should not simply rubber-stamp the wishes of the prosecutor. The prosecutor was going to have to provide better evidence or better witnesses in order to get indictments from this grand jury.
We can't have that in our police state, can we? How could we maintain our world record of 751 people in prison or jail per 100,000 population?
So the head of the tall poppy was lopped off, the square peg was pounded into the round hole, and a violently shaking judge genuflected to the power of the state. In front of the prosecutor and a court reporter, the judge threw the honest citizen off the grand jury. The dismissed grand juror was frightened by the judge and remains intimidated to this very minute. (See update, below.)
How effective is this strategy of custom tailoring the grand jury? Ask Ray Krone. This is the county that twice convicted an innocent man, put him in prison for more than 10 years, including three years on death row, and really has no problem with doing that to anyone.
Now you know one method the United States uses to keep its population of 2.3 million prisoners growing.
Red Beckman on the power and function of juries
The Supreme Court has described the grand jury as "a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused . . . to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice or ill will." Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390 (1962).
See also: Felon (Movie)
See also: Corrupt Arizona Courts
Update 07/21/08: In the five days since this Maricopa County grand juror was inexplicably dismissed by the judge, the grand juror's property has been invaded in the middle of the night, one of the grand juror's dogs was shot with a large-caliber bullet and his leg had to be amputated at the shoulder, a tire has been slashed, and a chain-link fence set in concrete was torn down and stolen in broad daylight. Do you think we have a problem with judicial corruption in Maricopa County, Arizona?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don't
by Paul Craig Roberts
National Public Radio has been spending much news time on Darfur in Western Sudan where a great deal of human suffering and death are occurring. The military conflict has been brought on in part by climate change, according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Drought is forcing nomads in search of water into areas occupied by other claimants. No doubt the conflict is tribal and racial as well. The entire catastrophe is overseen by a government with few resources other than bullets.
Now an International Criminal Court prosecutor wants to bring charges against Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer. Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court's pick from the assortment of war criminals? Why al-Bashir?
Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn't the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?
Bush and Blair's crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush's invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard. Bush's war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the UK, Spain, Canada, and Australia. The leaders of every member of the "coalition of the willing to commit war crimes" are candidates for the dock.
But of course the Great Moral West does not commit war crimes. War crimes are charges fobbed off on people demonized by the Western media, such as the Serbian Milosovic and the Sudanese al-Bashir.
Every week the Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their homes, steals their land, and kills Palestinian women and children. These crimes against humanity have been going on for decades. Except for a few Israeli human rights organizations, no one complains about it. Palestinians are defined as "terrorists," and "terrorists" can be treated inhumanely without complaint.
Iraqis and Afghans suffer the same fate. Iraqis who resist US occupation of their country are "terrorists." Taliban is a demonized name. Every Afghan killed -- even those attending wedding parties -- is claimed to be Taliban by the US military. Iraqis and Afghans can be murdered at will by American and NATO troops without anyone raising human rights issues.
The International Criminal Court is a bureaucracy. It has a budget, and it needs to do something to justify its budget. Lacking teeth and courage, it goes after the petty war criminals and leaves the big ones alone.
Don't get me wrong. I'm for holding all governments accountable for their criminal actions. It is the hypocrisy to which I object. The West gives itself and Israel a pass while damning everyone else. Even human rights groups fall into the trap. Rights activists don't see the buffoonery in their complaint that President Bush, who has violated more human rights than any person alive, is letting China off the hook for human rights abuses by attending the Olympics hosted by China.
President Bush claims that the enormous destruction and death he has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary in order for Americans to be safe. If we are accepting excuses this feeble, Milosovic passed muster with his excuse that as the head of state he was obliged to try to preserve the state's territorial integrity. Is al-Bashir supposed to accept secession in the Sudan, something that Lincoln would not accept from the Confederacy? How long would al-Bashir last if he partitioned Sudan?
Last October the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a photo on its front page above the fold of an elderly man with mikes shoved in his face. Paul Henss, 85 years old, is being deported from the US, where he has lived for 53 years, because Eli Rosenbaum, director the the US State Department's Nazi-hunting bureaucracy, declared him a war criminal for training guard dogs used at German concentration camps. Henss was 22 years old when World War II ended.
A kid who trained guard dogs is being deported as a war criminal, but the head of state who launched two wars of naked aggression, resulting in the deaths of more than 1.2 million people, and who has the entire world on edge awaiting his third war of aggression, this time against Iran, is received respectfully by foreign governments. Corporations and trade associations will pay him $100,000 per speech when he leaves office. He will make millions of dollars more from memoirs written by a ghostwriter.
Does no one see the paradox of deporting Henss while leaving the war criminal in the White House?
Israel, AIPAC, and God
Once Again, Fred Solves World Problem
by Fred Reed
I'm sitting here with a bottle of Padre Kino red, listening to a burro honk outside and trying to figure out Israel and AIPAC and life itself. It's hard going, I tell you.
Why is everybody mad at AIPAC? Everybody, I mean, everybody who's heard of it, which means maybe five percent of Americans. Apackers are simply patriots, earnestly trying to do the best they can for their country, which isn't the United States. I'd do the same thing, if I were one of them. I mean, everybody buys Congress—big pharma, the military companies, the teachers unions, anybody who wants anything pays Congress to do what they want if they have enough money. I'm surprised they don't have advertised sales. I guess AIPAC can buy them too.
Why aren't people mad at Congress instead, which does what The Lobby tells it to? AIPAC isn't supposed to be concerned about the good of the US. Congress is, and isn't.
What I reckon is: AIPAC figures it's helping Israel, but I gotta suspect it may be Israel's worst enemy. Think about it. Israel is a tiny little country in a bad neighborhood. Everybody where it is hates it. Greater Israel is full of Hay-rabs that hate it, and getting fuller. Does this sound like a recipe for a happy ending?
I remember what a friend said about Phnom Penh during the siege: "It's hopeless but not critical."
You'd figure under those circumstances the Israelis would go back in the '67 borders, try their damndest to get along with the people next door, and thus stay Jewish, which was the point of the thing in the first place. It's probably their only shot. But they aren't going to do it.
No. They gotta bomb everybody they can reach and keep building apartments on Palestinian land, which is why Greater Israel has pretty much turned into South Africa or the US in 1930. Looks to me as if we're gonna have fewer and fewer Israelis holding down more and more Hay-rabs so they'll have to be meaner and meaner to do it until the whole shebang falls in. They want this?
Why does Israel do everything it can think of to make the whole world hate it? Because it can. Why can it? Because America is its enabler. Israel has a huge air force because America gives it airplanes. Nobody else would. Its economy stays afloat because America gives it money. If it wants to bomb somebody, the US keeps the world from stopping it. If it loses a war, which it did in '73, the US bails it out. Israel can always say, "If you don't like it, I'll make my big brother beat you up."
And that's a bad thing, because one day the big brother may not come. Israelis might be better off with less help, so they'd have to learn to live where they are.
As best I can tell, AIPAC is all that makes the US pony up. If Israel got overrun tomorrow, most Americans would see it as less upsetting than a lost Super Bowl. They don't hate Israel. They don't even hate Jews. They just aren't interested. Israel is like, you know, a foreign country, over there. Somewhere. "Huge Earthquake in Latvia." Yeah, well. What's on channel four?
Me, I'd be nervous if my country, and my house with my kids in it and my stereo and wine rack, depended on one lobby.
Now, will The Lobby ever lose its grip, or will the US ever stop saving Israel from itself? I don't know. If I were an Israeli, I believe I'd rather avoid making the experiment. Certainly people talk about The Lobby more than they used to dare, and some major columnists have gotten kind of blunt about it. Pat Buchanan, Charlie Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, and such, for example. On the other hand, most people don't read columns, and anyway, Congress is what counts, and it doesn't have to do what people want.
Can anything shake AIPAC's control in Washington? Yep. Money. Oil. Twelve dollar gas. The American public is the most clueless in the First World, but it knows the price of gas. So far, AIPAC has had an easy ride because Israel hasn't really cost much: a few billion a year in aid, some vetoes in the UN, and a bunch of angry ragtops growling on their sand dunes. This doesn't affect folks back in the district. You can do anything you want in Washington as long as people back home are comfortable.
However, it is worth remembering that Congress doesn't like AIPAC, or Israel. It fears them. The moment Congress comes to fear people back home more than it does AIPAC, it will change sides.
Now, the US is not heading in happy directions. Economically, it was not so long ago the greatest creditor nation; today it is the greatest debtor. (The number-one creditor: China.) General Motors is tottering, closing factories and firing people as Japanese car-makers take over. Financial institutions crump to be bailed out by the government. Gas was at $4.15 yesterday in California. The country seems to be in an economic decline and hasn't figured it out, sort of like a 50-year-old man who thinks he's nineteen. Economic decline eventually means military decline.
If Bush, Cheney, and AIPAC push the US into attacking Iran, God only knows what will happen. Bush, Cheney, and AIPAC don't know. At least their record isn't encouraging: They pushed the country into attacking Iraq, and look how that went. I'd call it Iranian roulette with about a two-shot revolver.
Even without Padre Kino it's easy to imagine the region turning into an unparalleled mess with America having to back out because it just doesn't have the army, and crazed Wahabis coming to power in Saudi Arabia, and OPEC, no longer afraid of the US and hating it, setting prices wherever it wants. Which probably wouldn't be downward. How much do you trust in the mercy of Hugo Chavez?
If gas prices (and all prices dependent on petroleum) hit truly absurd highs, every voter in every congressional district will be screaming, along with all his cousins, dogs, cats, and blowup dolls, for cheap gas—and the heads of those responsible. If the choice ever becomes oil or Israel, then Israel will lose. I would think AIPAC would go to great lengths to prevent the choice from materializing. But no. It wants to attack Iran. As it wanted to attack Iraq. That's how smart Apackers really are.
If there is anything that could ignite serious hostility to Jews in the US, methinks this is it. It would be something of a bum rap. Jews and AIPAC are not the same thing. I know all sorts of Jews who think attacking Iran is a fool idea.
Historically, however, Jews have been blamed for what they have done, what they could have done, what they might have done, what they didn't do, and what they couldn't possibly have done. Respectable voices begin to blame The Lobby for getting America into Iraq (e.g., Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst). The charge is only partly true: In a world in which the supply of oil is getting dicey, colonization of Iraq would give the US strategic control of lots of it. This, I promise, has occurred to Dick Cheney. But petro-strategic considerations are too complex for the public mind. "AIPAC did it!" is much simpler.
If I were Jewish, I would ask, "Is AIPAC really helping Israel by enabling its crazies to make war on everyone within reach while staring into the face of onrushing demographic self-mutilation?" But I'm just some Anglo in Mexico with a bottle of Padre Kino.
Fred Reed says he takes full blame for Curmudgeing Through Paradise: Reports from a Fractal Dung Beetle.
What the critics are saying about this collection of sedition and outrage:
"Fred, be discriminate!" -Al Sharpton
"Fred deserves his own entry in the DSM V." -Psychology Today
"Despicable. Without redeeming features." -New York Preview of Books
"Fred--that ugh! man--is the ideological equivalent of the Hillside Strangler." -The American Feminist
Copyright 2008 Fred Reed
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
My Plan for America
[Written on behalf of Nouri Kamel Mohammed Hassan al-Maliki, this is a response by Mark Yannone to Barack Obama's outrageous op-ed "My Plan for Iraq" in The New York Times.]
My call for a timetable for the ejection of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of our snipers and bomb makers that I have long advocated and that is needed for reestablishing Iraq's sovereignty and security.
Like all Iraqis, I opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq before it began and vow to end it as Prime Minister. Clearly, it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against invaders by thinking that the United States and its allies posed no threat and would not try to associate us with their own self-inflicted wounds of 9/11. Since then, more than one million Iraqis have been killed, many more millions have been wounded and dislocated, and the economic cost is in the billions of euros. Our defense forces are gravely reduced, but our American enemy has also paid dearly for our resistance. Our allies have grown stronger, and their resolve to expel the Americans from the Middle East grows daily.
In the 18 months since Bush announced his "surge," our agents have performed heroically in escalating the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected the CIA — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that forced us to oppose the surge still hold true. We have strained their military forces, and they have spent nearly $200 billion more in opposing us than they had budgeted. Fortunately, Iraq's leaders have wisely delayed spending our oil revenues on reconstruction while the Americans are still here to undo our efforts and waste our precious resources.
Iraq's leaders will take full responsibility for our country by negotiating a timetable for the ejection of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq's security forces, claims the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009. Of course, we will have to laugh quietly among ourselves about this outrageous statement.
Some American politicians who stand to gain from endless military expenditures in Iraq are labeling our reestablishment of national sovereignty a "surrender," and they oppose any effort to withdraw American troops. They leave us no choice but to continue the violence against them. Though the Americans have repeated many times that they will leave when asked, they have ignored our every request that they leave. Maybe I will have to appear on Dave Letterman's show before they take us seriously, I don't know. Until then, we will speak the only language they know: deadly force.
Remaining in Iraq will not be a strategy for their success. It is a strategy that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people, and the security interests of the United States. That is why, today, I give the military a new mission: end this American occupation by any means possible. Our most talented patriots have the resources they require. They already speak English better than most Americans, and they can find Washington, DC, on a map.
As I've said many times, we must be as relentless in getting the Americans out of Iraq as they were careless getting in. We can safely send our patriots abroad at a pace that would convince the Americans to recall their troops in six months, or by the next Day of Ashura. Six years of occupation is six years too many. After this ousting, the only Americans we should see on our sidewalks are those who are here by permission.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. Our patriots will be in communication with our commanders and others in the Iraqi government to ensure that our mission is successful. We would move them to secure areas first, then to more productive areas later. We would pursue an offensive with every nation allied with the United States on behalf of Iraq's sovereignty, so that we can once again assure Iraq's refugees that they can return home in peace.
Ending the occupation is essential to reestablishing Iraq's national sovereignty. Fortunately, some Americans know that Iraq has nothing to do with Bush's invented "war on terrorism." And Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently reminded the Americans that they don't have sufficient resources to continue their oil pipeline project in Afghanistan unless they stop wasting money in Iraq.
As Prime Minister, I shall pursue a strategy to convince the Americans that their resources are wasted here in Iraq. No matter how many troops and helicopters and extremely expensive support personnel they send to feed a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq, it will never be enough.
Though a few Americans like McCain would like to see permanent bases in Iraq like they have established in South Korea, the majority of Americans must be convinced that their best interests lie elsewhere. American history is littered with a long chain of strategic blunders in their foreign policy, but this time the silly opposition that uses false charges about "flip-flops" and "surrender" will not prevail.
It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this American occupation.
Nouri Kamel Mohammed Hassan al-Maliki is the Prime Minister of Iraq. If al-Maliki were as outrageous as Obama, his op-ed would read like this. It's not easy to stand up to Bush when Bush's terrorist guns are pointed at every follicle on your head.
Update 07/19/08: Iraq PM: U.S. troops should leave as soon as possible
Update 07/18/08: U.S., Iraq to set "time horizon" on troop cuts
by Mark Yannone
Forced to embarrass the government-educated, old-media-conditioned caller, Member of Parliament George Galloway explains to his radio audience the harsh realities of bombing Iran.
Galloway: An attack on Iran will be the biggest mistake in history. The Middle East's oil fields will be on fire. The Persian Gulf will be blocked and on fire. You won't find oil at $150 per barrel. You won't find oil at $1500 per barrel.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The day Americans finally awoke from their stupor
by Craig J. Cantoni
It changed American politics and probably saved the nation.
I'm speaking of the day 20 years ago, on August 15, 2008, during the presidential race between two mediocre senators, Barack Obama and John McCain, whom history would have quickly forgotten if it were not for what happened to them on that momentous day. It is the day we now celebrate as the Second Independence Day, or as some call it, the Day of Awakening.
One has to remember that it happened during a time in our nation's history when the cumulative effects of 30 years of government lies, economic folly, fiscal irresponsibility, and foreign policy insanity had brought the nation to the brink of economic collapse. On that Day of Awakening, the public stopped being apathetic, gullible, and obedient.
Most people believe that the events were orchestrated, because they were too similar to have happened spontaneously. No proof of orchestration has ever been found, but if someone was behind the events, he deserves his likeness on a mountain in South Dakota.
The scenes are as vivid in my aged mind as if they had happened yesterday.
I can still see the youthful Obama bounding to the podium to give one of his Elmer Gantry-like speeches at a campaign rally in Berkeley, California, to what he thought was an audience of brainwashed, docile left-liberals. At the same time, McCain was walking slowly to the podium to give one of his somnolent speeches at a campaign rally in Sun City, Arizona, to what he thought was an audience of brainwashed, docile veterans.
As both candidates smiled and waved their arms in exuberant greetings, they were met with silence instead of clapping and cheers. Stunned, each candidate looked out at the audience and saw hundreds of people glaring at him with icy stares and with their arms tightly folded. Sensing that something newsworthy was happening, the reporters and TV crews in attendance jolted to attention.
Amazingly, both candidates continued with their prepared speeches. Five minutes into the speeches, individuals in the two audiences began to stand up one after another and yell questions at the candidates, like bullets from a rhetorical machine gun.
"Why are you bequeathing a bill of over $700,000 to each American under the age of 18? Isn't that immoral?"Bam-bam-bam! The questions kept coming. Unprepared for the questions and not having been programmed with the answers, the candidates dodged and danced more than a bloodied and bruised boxer in the tenth round of a prize fight.
"Why do you keep lying about the existence of a Social Security Trust Fund? Isn't that dishonest?"
"How do you plan to pay off the $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare? Are you going to continue to print money, borrow from foreigners, and debase the dollar?"
"Why shouldn't you be arrested as criminals for violating the supreme law of the land? Didn't you take an oath to uphold the Constitution?"
Finally, someone in both audiences yelled, "Let's give him what Ceausescu got!" On cue, everyone rose and began chanting, "Ceausescu! Ceausescu! Ceausescu!"
The candidates' faces turned ashen with fear, for both of them knew what Rumanian President Nicolae Ceausescu had gotten. He had gotten deposed and killed after he had destroyed the Rumanian economy and staged a mass rally that was just as phony as the two candidates' campaign rallies. Both Obama and McCain knew enough history to know that Rumanians, sick of Ceausescu's lies, had turned on him at his staged rally, in one of the greatest examples of poetic justice in history.
Obama and McCain began backing away from their respective lecterns as Secret Service agents drew their guns and formed a phalanx in front of them. The crowds edged closer, still chanting, "Ceausescu! Ceausescu! Ceausescu!"
Both candidates escaped with their lives and withdrew their candidacy two weeks later, after the scenes were repeated at later rallies. The rest is history. Ron Paul formed a new political party, ran for president and won, and restored the Constitution, the economy, and the dollar.
Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Arizona JAG officer wants Bush tried for war crimes
by Mark Yannone
From the KPHX radio station in Phoenix, Arizona, Colonel Joe Abodeely told his worldwide radio audience on Saturday exactly how and why he expects George W. Bush to be prosecuted for the war crimes he committed as president of the United States. Drawing on his considerable expertise in criminal law and his accomplished military career, Colonel Joe helped those of us who want the Bush crime family held accountable to see the distinct possibility on the horizon. [Listen] [MP3] 17:57 [Paper for publication]
JAG: Judge Advocate General. Attorneys in the JAG Corps provide the legal services for each branch of the military.
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley comments on George Bush's war crimes and this "ignoble moment" where the United States could be forced by the international community to enforce our own laws and prosecute those who are responsible for torture.
Law School Conference Will Plan Bush War Crimes Prosecution
The Massachusetts School of Law at Andover may be a good place to study law, but, come September, MSL will also be a place to plan for the prosecution and conviction of the war criminals in the Bush administration.
The dean, Lawrence Velvel, says in a statement that "plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth."
Velvel added, "We must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war criminals in the 1940s." [Full story]
Friday, July 11, 2008
Destroy the economy and go to cocktail parties; smoke dope and go to prison
by Craig J. Cantoni
What happens when our overlords in Congress, the White House, and the Federal Reserve destroy the economy and ruin millions of lives? They get invited to cocktail parties and news shows, and are treated with respect and dignity by the public.
What happens when some poor schlemiel gets caught with several ounces of dope for his own use and hasn't harmed anyone? He goes to prison.
HAVE WE LOST OUR MINDS? HAVE WE LOST ALL SENSE OF PROPORTIONALITY AND JUSTICE?
Sorry, but please allow me one more emotional outburst: WHAT KIND OF MIND CONTROL HAS TAKEN PLACE TO KEEP AMERICANS FROM THINKING ABOUT THROWING THEIR OVERLORDS IN PRISON?
That's not a facetious question. If you thought it was, then perhaps you don't know what the overlords have been doing to us for the last three decades to bring us close to economic collapse today. They have knowingly turned the country into a debtor nation, given average folks an incentive to spend more than they make, created the housing bubble and other bubbles, given us trillions of dollars of free stuff without any intention of paying the bill, debased the dollar and thus our standard of living, and covered their crimes with economic bunkum, populist hokum, and money borrowed from foreigners.
If you don't think that Alan Greenspan, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain should be wearing prison stripes and eating from metal plates instead of going to Washington cocktail parties, then you must want to empty prisons of all convicted burglars, because, collectively, burglars have done far less harm to society than Congress, the White House, and the Fed.
Or perhaps you don't know the facts, which would be understandable, given that government K-12 schools and government-dependent universities don't educate students about the economic crimes of the government. Some of those students become reporters and pundits, who don't know enough about economics and economic history to tell their audiences about the crimes. However, in their defense they know a lot about A-Rod's affair with Madonna.
A day doesn't go by without someone sending an email to me about Big Oil, regurgitating some tripe he heard in the imbecilic media about Exxon Mobil's profits and oil speculators. The senders don't know that Exxon Mobil is a small player compared to the real Big Oil -- the state-owned oil companies around the world. Even more telling, the senders never say anything about Big Fanny. No, not their rear ends, where many of them keep their heads; but Fannie Mae, the voracious monster created by the government to give mortgages to people who shouldn't get mortgages.
Big Fanny has become a slush fund for political payoffs and cronyism. Its former CEO, who made $90 million a year, was fired for cooking the books; yet he became an advisor to Mr. Change, Barack Obama. More capital has gone through Big Fanny than crap through the fannies of every goose in the world. If the company runs out of capital, the government could be on the hook for $5 trillion.
Psst! Let me whisper a secret to you: The government is you.
Amazingly, Big Fanny is a small burglary ring compared to Big Congress and Big Fed, the members of which deserve to be sent to the Big House and have their fannies lusted after by their fellow inmates.
Yeah, I know: You're powerless to mete out justice and imprison them. But the least you can do is stop treating them with respect and start treating them like the Big Crooks and Big Asses that they are.
Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Many Questions, No Attempt to Answer
by Mark Yannone
It cannot be forgotten or explained away. Like the other two buildings that were demolished with explosions and shape charges that morning, World Trade Center Building 7 was leveled in just a few seconds at 5:20 p.m. Weeks later, all three buildings still had molten steel in their basements.
This was not the result of foreign terrorists sneaking across our borders. This was the result of a government contract that required all three buildings, filled with government offices, to be professionally destroyed with the accurate placement of highly regulated explosives.
Why would government do this? Here's the first paragraph of a 77-page white paper titled "Protecting Your Community From Terrorism: The Strategies for Local Law Enforcement Series," which calls for the enhancement of the 18,500 federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in America. If you haven't heard of Terrorism Liaison Officers yet, you will. [Watch/Listen] 13:17
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has made significant strides toward strengthening homeland defense, improving emergency response, and reducing community fear. Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels are beginning to create positive working relationships with each other, and to integrate their strategies for responding to the threat of terrorism. They are recognizing not only the importance, but also the need for enhanced vertical and horizontal communications.How can we tell that this federal call for terrorism prevention is as insincere as the federal government's dedication to immigration control? Has the federal government removed the war criminals from the White House? Did the federal government do a credible job of investigating, reporting, or even recording the events of 9/11? Did the federal government discourage or encourage immigration? Did the federal government discourage or encourage retaliation for its deadly empire-building?
by Mark Yannone
Most people are aware of many of the effects of these organizations, but they are not aware of their identities or their activities. Author and researcher G. Edward Griffin explains what you probably missed and reveals what is in your near future.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Dr. Sami al-Arian
Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how long we have to keep him in prison.
(12/7/2005) - FBI agents tapped his phones for nine years. They twice raided his home and offices, taking dozens of boxes of personal belongings. He was arrested in February 2003 and fired by USF [University of South Florida] in that same month. He spent the past three years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement, charged with 17 counts of terrorism-related activities. His trial began June 6, 2005. It ended Tuesday, exactly six months later. [Full story]
Result: No convictions. Yet he remains in prison! This is one more reason to get rid of Alberto Gonzales.
(2/7/2007) - This university professor of computer science, a loved and widely respected family man with a spotless record, remains behind bars in his ninth American prison, where he has been for 1448 days. [Read more] [Watch] [Listen] 20:43
See also: Free Sami al-Arian
Update 07/10/08: Judge Grants Bail to Dr. Sami Al-Arian
Dr. Sami Al-Arian's bond hearing was held this morning, July 10, 2008, at the U.S. District Courthouse in Alexandria, VA. His children Abdullah, Laila and Ali were in the courtroom, as well as a number of Al-Arian supporters, including four Washington Report staff members. Al-Arian himself looked gaunt and exhausted.
Judge Leonie Brinkema listened to the government's arguments presented by the prosecution, U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who painted a muddled picture of Al-Arian as a dangerous man who has refused to provide evidence against an Islamic think tank, and as a flight risk.
The defense arguments presented by Al-Arian's attorney, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, told a different story. Al-Arian, his attorney explained, has volunteered four times to take polygraph tests, answered every question the government has asked, and examined every document the government has asked him to comment on in their efforts to prosecute a Virginia think tank. Dr. Al-Arian has painstakingly explained the government's every misinterpretation and said he knows of no criminality. According to Turley, the government did not respond to several offers by Al-Arian to take polygraphs and has said he is a minor witness in its investigation. Yet, contrary to its agreement to expedite his deportation, it still refuses to release him.
Turley told Judge Brinkema that Al-Arian was not a flight risk or a danger to the community. "He's an international scholar who would not abandon his children or his principles to become a fugitive," Turley explained. Al-Arian posted his entire retirement savings, $340,000, as bond and offered to undergo global positioning monitoring. An undisclosed friend offered to post his own home as bond, but the judge said she would not require that. In response to a question from Judge Brinkema, Turley also noted Al-Arian's health issues and the fact that the U.S. government would not agree to operate on Al-Arian's hernia, even though Al-Arian's family offered to pay for the surgery.
Judge Brinkema decided to release Al-Arian on bond, in the custody of his son Abdullah. He will be under house arrest and released from U.S. Marshal custody as soon as the monitoring equipment arrives and bond is posted. However, she noted, she could not order Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to release Dr. Al-Arian if they decide to hold him. Even if that is the case, Judge Brinkema said, the clock will start running on the deadline by which Al-Arian must be deported.
As for Kromberg's contention that Al-Arian is a man without a country and no country is willing to accept Al-Arian when he is deported, Turley said the government is showing "willful blindness." The Egyptian government has sent a letter to the U.S. government saying it will accept Al-Arian, Turley said—a letter which Kromberg has received. Palestinians also have invited Al-Arian to live in the occupied territories, Turley said. Judge Brinkema warned that she did not want to hear that there had been any signal or pressure from the U.S. government to make a country (i.e., Egypt) change its position about receiving Al-Arian.
Dr. Al-Arian's trial on charges of criminal contempt (for refusing to testify before a grand jury convened by Kromberg) is scheduled to begin August 13. At the conclusion of the trial (assuming he is not sentenced to an indeterminate prison sentence), ICE would resume deportation proceedings for Sami Al-Arian—who, after 12 years of surveillance and a lengthy trial in his home town of Tampa, Florida—has yet to be convicted of a single charge brought against him. [Source]
See also: Jailed Professor Ordered Free on Bond
See also: Dr. Sami Al-Arian Granted Bail
See also: Sami Al-Arian, Catch-22, and the Tragedy of Post-9/11 America
Update 08/08/08: Judge Postpones Trial
Nearly three weeks after being granted bond by federal Judge Leonie Brinkema, Sami Al-Arian is still being held in prison. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has moved him three times and subjected him to terrible treatment, including 23-hour lock-downs and placement in isolation in Pamunkey Regional Jail in Hanover, Virginia, more than 100 miles from his wife and children.
On August 6 Dr. Al-Arian was transported back to Arlington, Virginia, in order to be near the Alexandria Courthouse in time for his August 8 hearing.
At the August 8 pretrial hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, Judge Leoni Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia postponed Dr. Sami Al-Arian’s trial on charges of criminal contempt of court. The trial was scheduled to begin on August 13, but, noting that he has an appeal pending before the US Supreme Court, Judge Brinkema ruled that the appeal must precede this trial. The Supreme Court reconvenes on October 7. [Source] [Source]
Update 09/02/08: Released after five years to await trial under home detention
by Mark Yannone
When government agents come for your guns and ammunition, you'll have to think about why you are armed. Most people will say they are armed for self-defense. But why was the Second Amendment worded like this?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.When you watch this video, it may dawn on you that the Second Amendment is your reminder that you are armed so that you can kill government employees.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
by Mark Yannone
In under six minutes the professor of history who asks the question "Just how stupid are we?" in a book by the same title tells us six times that our form of government is a democracy.
Oh, wait! He's not really saying that Americans are as stupid as he is; he's just saying that American politics is stupid. Yeah, OK, Professor Shenkman.
This concerted effort to convince Americans that we have a democracy is fascinating. The effect is to shift the immediate blame for our ills away from our lawless governments toward the voting public who are being "good Americans" by voting their will in their "democracies."
We're not supposed to look at the law, see. We're to focus on the vote -- a vote that was funny even before it was stolen using election fraud tools like month-long absentee balloting and touchscreen polling.