RE: Alex Jones on the NEOCON agenda: "They are gonna kill me"

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ♥ Angel ♥ ™ ~For Truth~
Date: May 16, 2007 9:47 AM


From: Pan Man



Alex Jones ain't perfect, but neither am I or you... or any of his detractors. The fact is, he puts his nads on the line everyday for what he believes in. He's the "lightning rod" of 911 and the NWO/NEOCONS.
Would you want that job? I seriously doubt it!

From: Anthony (Namaste)



Pamela's Protest

Trouble


Alex Jones says "I know they are gonna kill me!"

RE: The boy who sees with no eyes...absolutely inspiring!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Elsewhere's Daughter
Date: May 16, 2007 10:14 AM


i love you, my friend ~Wyzowl~
Date: May 16, 2007 6:51 AM


The boy who sees with no eyes...

Amazing vid.....very inspiring...hope you'll watch this...or save it for later...
Loads of love to: Shiva
&
Love & Light Too
akala

Fort Baghdad: enroll early and skip the draft

RE: It's not an embassey...it's a fortress.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Elsewhere's Daughter
Date: May 16, 2007 11:53 AM


A fortress from which we'll attempt to run an occupied country. Like everything else these idiots have done, this will fail in spectacular fashion.



The embassy compound in Baghdad will have more than 600 blast-resistant apartments -- but could use a few more.



World's Biggest U.S. Embassy May Not Be Quite Big Enough

By Al Kamen
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; Page A13

For all those who keep whining about how the government can't do anything right, we're happy to report that the massive New Embassy Compound in Baghdad, the biggest U.S. embassy on earth, is going to be completed pretty much as scheduled in August.

The bad news is that it appears it's not going to have enough housing for all the employees who'll be moving to the 27-building complex on a 104-acre tract of land -- about the size of the Vatican, two-thirds the size of the Mall -- within the Green Zone.


The embassy compound in Baghdad will have more than 600 blast-resistant apartments -- but could use a few more.
The embassy compound in Baghdad will have more than 600 blast-resistant apartments -- but could use a few more.

In fact, our new man in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, is said to be concerned that, while there are more than 600 blast-resistant apartments in the NEC, there's a need for several hundred more apartments.

Problem seems to be that the original plans didn't account for hundreds of staff working in reconstruction, development, the inspector general's office and other security programs, who, though considered temporary, will need, at least for a few years, somewhere to live. There are 1,000 Americans working at the embassy, and Crocker is looking to downsize, but we hear he's having trouble finding even 100 to toss overboard.

Also, there are about 200 non-U.S. workers brought in from around the region who are replacing Iraqi staff because it is too dangerous for the Iraqis, who live outside the fortified Green Zone, to work for Americans.

Worst of all, there's no provision for rooms for congressional delegations or other distinguished guests coming to shop in the famed markets. There aren't any safe hotels in Baghdad, much less a decent B&B.

Embassy employees, now living in trailers with no overhead protection, are getting increasingly jittery over mortar and rocket attacks. New guidelines tell them to wear helmets and flak jackets when walking in the open. But some employees, sleeping in those tin-can trailers, apparently would actually like to take off the helmets and jackets while they're in bed.

One speaker at a recent town hall meeting in Baghdad, McClatchy Newspapers reported yesterday, asked for bullet-resistant Kevlar blankets to protect him from shrapnel in case of incoming mortar fire.

There's discussion now of a short-term solution that would put some people in trailers in the 30 to 40 acres not being used for housing. They would be right outside the compound but at least have overhead cover.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week said she dispatched super-competent Patrick Kennedy-- now director of management policy and talked about as a possible undersecretary for management at the State Department -- to Baghdad to assess the situation.

Crocker's home in the NEC -- which one source said was about 16,000 square feet -- is expected to be ready. Ditto deputy chief of mission Daniel Speckhard's cottage, which is a cozy 9,500 square feet. In addition to office buildings, the complex, located on the banks of the Tigris River, will have a pool and gym and a 17,000-square-foot commissary and food court building.

The NEC will also have its own water supply, power plant and waste-treatment facility so it doesn't have to rely on the Iraqis for essential services.

All this for only $592 million. Well, that was the original price tag.

'Not a Campaign Document'

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. is running for president of the United States. So it seemed most peculiar when some colleagues here received a 90-page booklet of his speeches and editorials from the last year about Iraq -- paid for by Senate funds and mailed from the Senate.


The embassy compound in Baghdad will have more than 600 blast-resistant apartments -- but could use a few more.
The embassy compound in Baghdad will have more than 600 blast-resistant apartments -- but could use a few more.

A cover letter to "Dear Friends" reminds us that a year ago he "announced a detailed plan for a way forward in Iraq." The last page says, "For over three decades, Joe Biden has played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy" and "has been a leading and consistent voice against the administration's failed policy in Iraq."

Looks like a campaign duck, sounds like, waddles like . . .? No. "It is not a campaign document," Biden press secretary Elizabeth Alexander said yesterday. "There's been a lot of misinformation about his plan for Iraq," she said, so "we wanted to make clear" what the details were. "There's nothing new here."

The fine booklet, which she said cost only $75 in all to produce, was sent to fewer than 140 media people, mostly columnists and foreign affairs and military writers, not political reporters. He's put out similar compilations before, Alexander said, about issues such as intellectual property and the Boys and Girls Clubs.

It's really not something they wanted to do. He's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Alexander noted, and "it's part of our duty to educate reporters and the public about his Iraq plan."

Quack . . .

New Face at the NSC?

The Korean press reported last week that Katrin Fraser, a Fulbright fellow in Korea after her graduation from college in 2000 and more recently a special assistant to Kristin Silverberg, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, is expected to replace Victor Cha as National Security Council director for Korea and Japan.

Cha, a fluent Korean speaker whose father-in-law was a general and minister in the Roh Tae Woo government of South Korea, has gone back to his international relations professorship at Georgetown University.

Fraser, who's not expected to be directly involved in negotiations on North Korea's nukes, has been harshly critical of President Bush. In a 2002 article for the Korea Society Quarterly, she said South Korean reaction to his "axis of evil" statement was "swift and largely negative," and talked of his "insensitivity to Korean cultural conventions."

RE: is Czar a title of Nobility

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Shane (Infoseekr)
Date: May 16, 2007 12:04 PM


News and Politics

..>..>

..>..>

is Czar a title of Nobility --- Wiki defines it as Monarch , Emperor and is it NOT illegal to accept titles of nobility? I believe there are severe consequence ... loss of citizenship etc... anyone have comment on this one??? I thought Bush W. was the DECIDER.....  I guess now hes the DELEGATER US 'war czar' to attack internet safe havens Register, UK - 1 hour ago The White House has at last managed to find a general willing to become "war czar". The administration had been having difficulty filling its new post, ... Bush nominates general to become first war czar Winston-Salem Journal (subscription) Bush chooses a three-star general as war czar International Herald Tribune Bush's Selection of War Czar Is Attempt at Cutting Red Tape FOX News all 518 news articles »

..>..>..>..>

Bush chooses Pentagon official to be 'war czar' for Iraq, Afghanistan Journal Times, WI - 19 minutes ago Douglas Lute as war czar does not bring the promise of a change in policy, speedier progress or an end to the fighting for US troops. ...

..>..>..>..>

Bush chooses Indiana native as 'war czar' for Iraq, Afghanistan The Herald-Times (subscription), IN - 22 minutes ago Douglas Lute, a native of Michigan City, Ind., as war czar does not bring the promise of a change in policy, speedier progress or an end to the fighting for ...

..>..>..>..>

Bush Names War Czar Post Chronicle - 1 hour ago US President George Bush named US Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute as the White House's new "war czar" to coordinate US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... Bush names war czar GOPUSA all 23 news articles »

..>..>..>..>

Bush Finds A War Czar CBS News, NY - 1 hour ago President Bush has finally found a war czar. Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute will coordinate US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. ...

8:43 AM

RE: The Blackwater Mercenaries : Your Tax Dollars at Work

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Save Our Troops,The WE Wont Forget 911 OLYMPICS
Date: May 16, 2007 12:14 PM


Lots of Love Bubbles to
~♥Reality~

James Clair Lewis
& Elsewhere's Daughter

RE: RE: U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ♥ Angel ♥ ™ ~For Truth~
Date: May 16, 2007 12:04 PM


Thanks: Valerie
Date: May 16, 2007 11:19 AM


U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact
Summary

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Special Reports:

*

Congress Watch: A Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: $91 Billion—and Counting
*

Congressional Research Report on Israel: US Foreign Assistance by Clyde Mark (213K pdf file)
*

U.S. Aid To Israel: The Strategic Functions
*

U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
*

U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship'
*

The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel


THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL

By Stephen Zunes

Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco

Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.

AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding." Given Israel's relative prosperity, U.S. aid to Israel is becoming increasingly controversial. In 1994, Yossi Beilen, deputy foreign minister of Israel and a Knesset member, told the Women's International Zionist organization, "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?"
U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know

by Tom Malthaner

This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.

Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)

When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.

Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people.
"U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship"'

by Stephen Zunes

"The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."

Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just…one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."

U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern…has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies…."

The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly,…Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel.

Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S. Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it."

In the fall of 1993-when many had high hopes for peace-78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain "at current levels." Their "only reason" was the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S. "I'm not denying for a moment the power of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby," and other similar groups, Zunes said. Yet the "Aerospace Industry Association which promotes these massive arms shipments…is even more influential." This association has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Its "force on Capitol Hill, in terms of lobbying, surpasses that of even AIPAC." Zunes asserted that the "general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC didn't exist. We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia in its savage repression of East Timor all these years." This is a complex issue, and Zunes said that he did not want to be "conspiratorial," but he asked the audience to imagine what "Palestinian industriousness, Israeli technology, and Arabian oil money…would do to transform the Middle East…. [W]hat would that mean to American arms manufacturers? Oil companies? Pentagon planners?"

"An increasing number of Israelis are pointing out" that these funds are not in Israel's best interest. Quoting Peled, Zunes said, "this aid pushes Israel 'toward a posture of callous intransigence' in terms of the peace process." Moreover, for every dollar the U.S. sends in arms aid, Israel must spend two to three dollars to train people to use the weaponry, to buy parts, and in other ways make use of the aid. Even "main-stream Israeli economists are saying [it] is very harmful to the country's future."

The Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [Israel] undertake[s] the 'dirty work' of a godfather who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation." 'To challenge this strategic relationship, one cannot focus solely on the Israeli lobby but must also examine these "broader forces as well." "Until we tackle this issue head-on," it will be "very difficult to win" in other areas relating to Palestine.

"The results" of the short-term thinking behind U.S. policy "are tragic," not just for the "immediate victims" but "eventually [for] Israel itself" and "American interests in the region." The U.S. is sending enormous amounts of aid to the Middle East, and yet "we are less secure than ever"-both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. Zunes referred to a "growing and increasing hostility [of] the average Arab toward the United States." In the long term, said Zunes, "peace and stability and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel."

This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also "jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law." Zunes sees significant potential in "building a broad-based movement around it."

The above text is based on remarks, delivered on. 26 January, 2001 by Stephen Zunes - Associate Professor of Politics and Chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at San Francisco University.
The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel

By Richard H. Curtiss

For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.

One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.

Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.

The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.

Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.

All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.

The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.

AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.

Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.

Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.

In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.

More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.

The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.

Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.

Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.

But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).

Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.

An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.

Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.

There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?

Hiding AIPAC's Tracks

In fact, the congressmembers know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.

Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.

Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.

Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.

According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.

Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.

The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.

Shocking Comparisons

These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for theWashington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.

As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.

But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.

It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.

Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.

Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.

Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.

Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.

By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi attrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.

True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.

In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.

On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.

There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.

There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.

Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.

It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it's a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America's mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.
Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Senate sells out America yet again

RE: U.S. Senators financially enslave Americans (Pharma)

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: HypoChris
Date: May 16, 2007 12:32 PM


U.S. Senators financially enslave Americans as Indentured Servants to Big Pharma
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 by: Mike Adams
Printable version Key concepts: America, American people and Big Pharma.

Want stories like this e-mailed to you? Click here for free e-mail alerts.



The facts found in the report are almost as astonishing as the source of the report itself: USA Today, a mainstream media giant in the United States, has revealed the apparent financial conflict of interest by U.S. Senators who voted against the infamous S.1082 reimportation amendment. That amendment would have ended Big Pharma's monopoly over U.S. consumers and ultimately saved American citizens, businesses and governments tens of millions of dollars by allowing them to import medicines from other nations with approved safety records (such as Canada or Japan).

But 49 Senators voted against the amendment, defending the Big Pharma monopoly that continues to force Americans to pay the highest prices in the world, by far, for medicines. As I've documented in my book, Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, some pharmaceuticals are marked up 500,000% or more over the cost of their ingredients!

What could have prompted these 49 Senators to vote to protect the profits of drug companies? Follow the money and you'll find your answer. As it turns out, nearly every one of the 49 Senators who voted against drug reimportation has accepted money from drug companies. USA Today reported the top offenders who voted against the bill, along with the dollars they've accepted from drug companies since 2001:


U.S. Senators' Drug Money
Richard Burr, R-N.C.
$520,694

John Kerry, D-Mass.
$304,888

Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
$281,040

Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
$259,699

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
$241,850

Max Baucus, D-Mont.
$199,000

Tom Carper, D-Del.
$183,794

Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.
$174,338

Notice that these Senators represent both major political parties, and there's even one independent in the mix. Consumers should remember that no political party will defend the people against powerful corporations. Ultimately, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will sell out in order to protect their own power and reelection funds.

As Rima Laibow (www.HealthFreedomUSA.org) observed in a recent e-mail update to her readers, it's amazing just how cheaply the U.S. Senators have been bought off! For a few hundred thousand dollars -- the profits from only a couple hundred prescription drug users -- these Senators appear to have been either strongly influenced or outright bribed to kill a measure that would have saved Americans tens of billions of dollars and finally freed the American people from the financial stranglehold of Big Pharma.

These Senators, of course, all insist they were voting to protect the "safety" of Americans, claiming that medicines imported from other countries are dangerous. But medicines bought right here in the United States are killing 100,000+ Americans each year! Do these Senators somehow imagine drugs bought in the U.S. are safer than the same medicines purchased somewhere else? Do they suffer under the illusion that paying more for prescription drugs somehow makes them safer?

When it comes down to it, none of the arguments against drug reimportation hold water. The killing of the amendment was done for one simple, uncomplicated reason: to protect the safety of Big Pharma profits by forcing Americans to pay monopoly prices for their medicines.


Modern-day Indentured Servants
The whole price fixing scam brings to mind a relevant term from American history: Indentured servants. These indentured servants were people who agreed to work a farm or plantation for a period of 4-7 years in exchange for passage to America. But dishonest plantation owners played a cruel trick on the indentured servants: They had to buy their farm tools and supplies from the plantation owner. But they couldn't pay cash since they didn't have any money, so they were forced to extend their work commitment in exchange for tools and supplies.

A shovel, for example, might cost you another month on the farm. A set of work clothes might cost you two months more. Little by little, the plantation owner enslaved the indentured servants in a never-ending cycle of debt that could only be repaid by a lifetime of work ending in death and bankruptcy.

Sound familiar? Americans are trapped in a lifetime of medical debt being paid to wealthy drug corporations. If you live in America and need medicine, the FDA and Big Pharma are doing everything in their power to make sure you have no choice but to buy it from "the company store" -- the monopoly-controlled U.S. pharmaceutical market that's basically in the business of ripping people off by selling them dangerous synthetic chemicals.

Need to control your blood sugar? That's a few thousand dollars a year. Have high cholesterol? Another few thousand. Got cancer? Fork over several thousand dollars each month for yet more chemicals sold at monopoly prices to a nation of health consumers who have been financially enslaved as Indentured Servants. I once talked to a cancer patient who was about to fork over $14,000 per injection for an experimental cancer drug! That person's life savings would have been wiped out in just one month while enriching the richest corporations in the world: drug companies.

Modern medicine is the new indentured servant plantation. Same scam, different crop. The American people are once again being worked to death by greedy businessmen who only wish to increase the size of their own profits, regardless of how many people have to be exploited or destroyed along the way. And 49 U.S. Senators seem to whole-heartedly approve of this financial enslavement of the American people. They voted, on the record, to propel a profiteering price scheme operated by a criminal conspiracy masterminded by the FDA and Big Pharma.


Republican Senators who voted for the financial enslavement of the American people
Lamar Alexander
Robert Bennett
Kit Bond
Jim Bunning
Richard Burr
Saxby Chambliss
Tom Coburn
Thad Cochran
Norm Coleman
Bob Corker
John Cornyn
Michael Crapo
Elizabeth Dole
Pete Domenici
Michael Enzi
Lindsey Graham
Judd Gregg
Chuck Hagel
Orrin Hatch
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Johnny Isakson
Jon Kyl
Richard Lugar
Mel Martinez
Mitch McConnell
Lisa Murkowski
Pat Roberts
Arlen Specter
Ted Stevens
John Sununu
Craig Thomas
George Voinovich
John Warner


Democratic Senators who voted for the financial enslavement of the American people
Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
Maria Cantwell
Thomas Carper
Edward Kennedy
John Kerry
Mary Landrieu
Frank Lautenberg
Blanche Lincoln
Robert Menéndez
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Ben Nelson
Jay Rockefeller
Kenneth Salazar


Corporate imperialism at work
One thing that these Senators have demonstrated quite convincingly is that the rich get richer in America, especially when rich Senators protect the rich drug companies at the expense of the increasingly impoverished American people.

In my opinion every one of the Senators listed here should be voted out of power at the next available opportunity. But of course, Big Pharma can buy off the replacements just as easily. There's no end to the cash being generated by this illegal price fixing scheme that, by any sane standard, would have long ago been classified as an organized crime racket and prosecuted under the RICO Act.

The real problem, then, is not necessarily dishonest Senators who would sell out their countrymen (and women) for a few dollars from Big Pharma. The real problem is that corporations are allowed to financially influence lawmakers in the first place! The problem is the lobbying and campaign finance structure that allows virtually all lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to be so easily and cheaply bought off (or at least strongly influenced) by corporate interests. Lobbyists are far too influential in Washington, and in fact, the Corporation itself has become dangerous to the health, safety and future of the American people. (View the documentary: The Corporation at http://www.TheCorporation.com )

Even if these 49 Senators actually sold out the American people, and even if they resigned tomorrow (which they would never think of doing, of course), their replacements would be just as easily corrupted by a system of corporate control over U.S. lawmakers that has turned the United States into a Plutocracy -- government by the wealthy elite, where the corporations and the government become one entity that exploits the productivity of the population to enrich the few.

As I pointed out in a previous article about this betrayal by U.S. Senators, many of our lawmakers have become adversaries of the people and are now openly fighting for the expansion of profits and power for mega-corporations while steamrolling the interests and freedoms of the American people. In a very real sense, they have openly betrayed the American people they claim to represent. They have devolved into corporate imperialists who aim to shore up their own power by sacrificing the interests of those they have sworn to protect -- the voters who gullibly put them into power in the first place.

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guies, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening.

RE: Matterik's Blog and Podcasts Alan Watt explains NWO

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: FREE FALL (Space Beam)
Date: May 15, 2007 6:21 PM


http://matterik.com/

My friend Matterik, in Sweden, speaks about Alan Watt quite frequently and is very insightful of the NWO and world concerns

click here to listen to Matterik's daily podcasts- He is very wise

Matterik's blog has a wealth of news, videos, interviews and articles you dont want to miss
(and links to all of Alan Watt's information
Matterik's blog- click here and scroll down for older posts
click 'My Podcast' at top


Matterik

New Age movement and Illuminati One and the same.





The Luciferian Doctrine



Be in the know about new age and the new world order




brain chips and socialism




Alan Watt website
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

HEAR RECENT INTERVIEWS, AND LECTURES at..
Cutting Through the Matrix- click here- Alan Watt official website

To download hundreds of audio podcasts and interviews with Alan Watt.. click hereand start listening...

Alan Watt tells it like no one else...

Download Alan Watt-click here

Alex Jones interview with Alan Watt



The Capstone That Killed JFK and The Speech That Sealed His Fate - Alan Watt





Outside the Box with Alex Ansary (Featuring Alan Watt)




Books that Alan Watt refer to:

Protocols of the learned Elders of Zion
Albert Pike "Morals and Dogma"
Plato "The Republic"
The Communist Manifesto
America BC by Barry Fell
The Shape of Things to Come - by H. G. Wells
In the Minds of Men by Ian T. Taylor
Impact of Science on Society by Bertrand Russell
The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin
Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley
Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley
The Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells.
The Prince by Nicholo Machiavelli
1984 by George Orwell (the book) and (the movie)
Between two Ages by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Education and the Good Life by Bertrand Russell
Agenda 21, www.un.org
United Nations Human Settlements Program
Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism & Syndication by Bertrand Russell
The second genesis;: The coming control of life by Albert Rosenfeld
The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler
Spycatcher, by Peter Wright
An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison : A True Story of Abuse and Exploitation in the Name of Medical Science, by Allen M Hornblum
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
The Wizard of Oz by L Frank Baum
Towards a new beginning by Mikhail S. Gorbachev
Movies that Alan Watt Refers to:

1984 by George Orwell
Logans run
THX 1138
Fahrenheit 451
The Wicker Man
Das Experiment
H.G.Wells Things To Come - 1936
The Others
Brainstorm
Wag the Dog
Control Factor
From Hell
Soylent Green
Network


Truth be upon...


Toll Road and a Pay Toilet (labotomized labrats)
frEinLy Fier ll9 reLAvTicN (eMenY TeRriBaList)

RE: NEW Home-video of 911 JUST RELEASED WOW!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: May 15, 2007 6:29 PM


Home-video of 911
NICK NACK PATTY WACK....GIVE THE DOG A BONE!
THIS WAS VERY GOOD...PAMELASPROTEST
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Vince
Date: May 15, 2007 2:35 PM


I hadn't seen this video yet, so check it out.
________________________________________________________
Here is a never before-released video of the WTC attacks. This has to be the clearest and most detailed video surrounding the terrorist attack on the towers. The video is graphic in depicting the collapse of the first tower.

9/11 Was An Inside Job

RE: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics - Intentional Blunder?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: madthumbs
Date: May 15, 2007 6:32 PM


Video debate: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics

The kids from Loose Change either didn't do their homework or they intentionally blundered this debate.

Loose Change was largely financed by the wealthy Jewish Simon family through Deborah Simon. The trio behind this video in an interview with Eric Hufschmid compare the importance of including Zionist involvement in the video to Bohemian Grove (they left it out). The three are responsible for increasing hatred towards Jews by not only a whitewashing evidence of Zionist involvement, but by helping to make a total mockery of the 9/11 truth movement and covering up a world class crime.

Click: What is Loose Change Really?

• Does Al Qaida even exist?

Soldiers families are "the enemy"

Or could it be the people who have been footing the bill for this fascist occupation of the middle-east. Well we will see how the trial of the 9-11 perpe-trators goes, when convicted every bill appointment and act committed by Bush or his administration needs to be removed for lack of public trust. Then we can see how Bush likes the other end of an execution.




RE: US forces denied access to YouTube, MySpace

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Sinchi Runa (enemy of tyrannical regimes)
Date: May 15, 2007 5:46 PM


US forces denied access to YouTube, MySpace

By Stephen Farrell and Tim Reid

May 16, 2007 03:30am
Article from: The Australian


US soldiers in Iraq reacted with dismay yesterday after the Pentagon blocked their access to websites including YouTube and MySpace, used widely to send and receive messages and pictures to loved ones at home.

The Pentagon said the decision had been made for security issues - to protect sensitive information being seen by the enemy - and to reduce drag on the military's bandwidth ability.

Soldiers said the move would hit morale and cut off a crucial link to family and friends.

In a separate move, the Pentagon also introduced new regulations clamping down on blogs by soldiers. Troops must now have any proposed blog site, and its content, previewed and approved.

The Pentagon said that soldiers were still permitted to use personal laptops and non-military computer servers to access sites including YouTube and MySpace (the social networking website owned by News Corporation, the parent company of the publisher of NEWS.com.au), but Pentagon computers and networks are the only ones available to many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One sergeant from Arizona, speaking in Baghdad, said: "It will bring morale down. This is how a lot of people keep in touch with family and friends.

"The average age of soldiers out here is in the 20s. They grew up with emails and they have got used to shooting off a message and getting a quick reply from their children, families and friends.

"Not every soldier has their own personal laptop, and not every FOB (forward operating base) has commercial access to the internet. It will affect them mostly."

Another soldier said: "That sucks. MySpace is how I communicate with my wife."

Since last year, YouTube has been used by Iraqi insurgents and the US military as part of the wider propaganda battle over the war.

Insurgents have posted videos of attacks on US troops, while the Pentagon has posted videos showing US forces defeating insurgents and befriending Iraqi civilians.

Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired magazine, said the restrictions on blogging and access to websites seemed intended to stop soldiers circulating bad news but could also prevent them from providing positive reports from the field.

"This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets," he said. "And they are muzzling their best voices."

The announcement was made by General BB Bell, commander of US forces in Korea.

"This recreational traffic impacts on our official DoD (Department of Defence) network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant security challenge," he said.

The Times, Washington, in The Australian

RE: Ron Paul Requests Our Help -Repost

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: May 15, 2007 5:50 PM


Ron Paul Requests Our Help -Repost

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: DJ ~ Truth & Freedom
Date: May 15, 2007 2:44 PM


Please Repost

Thank You
Ron Paul 2008
Date: May 15, 2007 4:23 PM


Dear Ron Paul Supporters,

Congressman Ron Paul will appear tonight in the 2nd GOP debate in South Carolina on FoxNews.com. This is another fantastic opportunity for Ron Paul to convince potential Republican primary voters of how critical it is for our nation to return to its founding principles.

You can help Ron Paul garner more media attention and support – before, during, and even after tonight's debate in Columbia. The following is a list of powerful actions you can take to help Ron Paul:

Before the Debate
1. Fox News is accepting questions from the public to ask the candidates. Email your question today to debate@foxnews.com. Remember to include your name, town, state and contact number for verification.
2. Email your friends to remind them to watch tonight and encourage them to join our effort at RonPaul2008.com. You can also leave a "comment" to your MySpace friends so that their friends and site visitors will see the reminder as well.
3. Find other Ron Paul supporters in your area through RonPaul.meetup.com and organize a debate-watching party in your area. It's always more fun that way!

During the Debate
1. Make your voice heard on blogs during the debate.

After the Debate
1. Vote for Ron Paul via text-message using your cellular phone. The number to which you can send your text-message is 36988. It will accept your vote between 7:30 p.m. EDT and 12:30 a.m. EDT. The code for Ron Paul is "R7"
2. Engage with others in the blogosphere about why Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the race who values the Constitution and the core values of America. Many of these sites will be querying their audiences about who won the debate – so please help promote Ron Paul!
3. The next day, Wednesday, May 16, take an hour out of your day to call and email your friends, family, neighbors and associates and encourage them to "Join us" at RonPaul2008.com.
4. Be sure to check back often at RonPaul2008.com for all the latest updates on post-debate coverage, as well as what people are saying.

Your efforts to support Ron Paul are greatly appreciated and we hope that you will continue to be a part of the Ron Paul Campaign – Hope for America!

Warm Regards,

Justine Lam
eCampaign Director

RE: 9/11 Truth Activist Gets Death Threats

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Paul Joseph Watson
Date: May 15, 2007 6:04 PM




9/11 Truth Activist Gets Death Threats

A prominent 9/11 truth activist and a reporter for Alex Jones' radio show has received threatening phone calls and death threats after exposing the fact that WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein got a warning on the morning of 9/11 not to come to work.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/150507deaththreats.htm

RE: RE: Silverstein Family Were All "Running Late" On 9/11

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Sinchi Runa (enemy of tyrannical regimes)
Date: May 15, 2007 4:44 PM


thanks:
Lullaby Academy
9/11 Research
Brian

 

Update: Silverstein Family Were All "Running Late" On 9/11

Amazing coincidences spared all three Silversteins from harm

 

Infowars.net
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

 

Following our article yesterday in which we revealed New York 9/11 truth activist Luke Rudkowski's claims that Silverstein's security had personally told him that Silverstein and his daughter got a warning on the morning of 9/11 not to come to work that day, we have been inundated with emails asking us to highlight the fact that there were in fact three Silversteins working in the towers who were all "running late" on that day.

 

http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/150507Silverstein.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------

WAKE UP!!!

thanks:
Erin
Neo-V™
James Clair Lewis
aweatherman
Maclean
Ma Justice
Omikron
Impeach GeOgre/ 9.11 Truth
* Christian *
911 TRUTH South Carolina

THE WTC 7 MYSTERY COLLAPSE ( TO PULL= CONTROLLED DEMOLITION)

BBC World News started reporting that 7 World Trade Center had collapsed about 23 minutes before the building actually came down, as video of the news network's live broadcast on September 11th shows.

The skyscraper also known as the Salomon Brothers Building was still standing and clearly visible over the shoulder of a BBC reporter in New York, even as the network provided accurate, past-tense details of its collapse. Jane Standley's live report was interrupted about five minutes before WTC 7 actually came down at 5:20pm EDT

.._plumecomparisonns0.gif" alt="Free Image Hosting at UpMyPic.com" border="0">

Dont let the News, President, or anyone else fool you into thinking that speaking out against a tyrannical government is somehow ANTI PATRIOT!!!



...us/img407/3930/newest911kkkkkkkkkkkkkkdv1.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" border="0">

The movie that awakened Millions! "LOOSE CHANGE" 2nd edition.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis by original compiler], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

-Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992
Bilderburgers meeting


Please Visit Matts website:

RE: Remember what got Clinton in so much impeachment trouble?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: May 15, 2007 5:04 PM





Hey! We don't have to wait on Monica! We have someone even better.....Jeff!

RE: RE: The THC Debate

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ♥ Angel ♥ ™ ~For Truth~
Date: May 15, 2007 4:34 PM


From: Marijuanifornia



North Dakota to DEA: Out of Our Hemp Fields

New Law Allows Hemp Farming Without DEA License, Farmers to Challenge DEA

BISMARCK, ND - North Dakota’s legislature wrapped up last week by telling the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that it would no longer require state-licensed industrial hemp farmers to seek DEA licenses. The law change removes the DEA license as a requirement of state law, but it can't protect farmers from federal prosecution. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, will support a lawsuit brought by ND-licensed hemp farmers to prevent the DEA from enforcing federal marijuana laws against them. If the farmers' lawsuit, which will be filed in the coming weeks, is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference.

“With the broad authority that has been granted to them by Congress, the DEA could have easily approved the applications of the farmers in North Dakota,” says Tom Murphy, National Outreach Coordinator for Vote Hemp. “The DEA could have also easily negotiated industrial hemp farming rules with North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson who has been talking to them about this for a year. Instead, they kept stalling until the time to plant had passed,” says Mr. Murphy. “North Dakota had nothing left to do but cut the DEA out of the picture.”

“I applied for my ND license in January and was hopeful the DEA would act quickly and affirm my right to plant industrial hemp this year. Unfortunately, the DEA has not responded in any way other than to state that it would take them a lot more time than the window of time I have to import seed and plant the crop,” said ND farmer, David Monson. “It appears that DEA really doesn’t want to work with anyone to resolve the issue”, Monson added.

The hemp language in HB 1020 was the result of several months of fruitless negotiations between the DEA and North Dakota officials, who hoped to gain federal recognition for the state-licensed hemp farmers. It amends the state hemp farming law to explicitly remove the Drug Enforcement Administration from the process.

“The legislative action is a direct response to the DEA's refusal to waive registration requirements, including $3,440 per farmer in non-refundable yearly application fees, and the agency's inability to respond to the farmers' federal applications in time for spring planting,” says Alexis Baden-Mayer, Vote Hemp’s Legislative Director. Read the DEA letter that was ND's last straw at http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/DEA_Letter_to_NDDA_03272007.pdf

“The North Dakota legislature's bold action gives Vote Hemp the opportunity we've been working towards for nearly a decade. Now that there is a state with comprehensive hemp farming regulations that has explicitly eschewed DEA involvement, we can finally make the case that states have the legal ability to regulate industrial hemp farming within their borders without federal interference,” says Baden-Mayer. Adding, “And, because ND Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson actually did spend nearly a year trying to work out an agreement with the DEA, it’s clear that DEA isn’t going to act in a reasonable way and isn’t ever to going to acknowledge the practical differences between industrial hemp and marijuana and accommodate ND's plan to commercialize hemp farming.”

http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2007/apr/30/vote_hemp_press_release_north_da
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Hemp Farming Act Allows Only 0.3 percent THC

Why is THC so important to the hemp plant? And human race?

THC is like a prophylactic. The bud is the sex organ that produces seed. THC coats it to protect it. The colder it is the more THC is produced. Stress produces THC. If you have a plant that is producing less than 8 percent you have holes in your condom. If you have 8 percent or more it will protect it.

Beginning at about 42 degrees it will start producing more THC. When down to 32 or 34 degrees, there will be so much THC they will look almost like they’re covered with ice. It just gets thicker and thicker.

How would an orange grow if you took off half its peel?

As a farmer, you want to make sure you give that plant every chance to grow and be healthy.

If there is 8 percent or more THC, they can survive outside below freezing with protection, like a plastic sheet over them.

Eddy Lepp - www.eddysmedicinalgardens.com
Jack Herer
http://www.jackherer.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

What does anyone here think about this?

Two sides of the same issue are taking different paths towards the same goal. This can be likened to the debate between Alice Paul and Susan B. Anthony over women's voting rights, or Dr. King and Malcolm X's debate over how to achieve rights for black people.

It is slightly irritating that the majour players in the legalization movement have not focused their attention and resources to promoting Hemp For Victory. If anyone bothered to notice, both "Marihuana" and hemp were legalized by the US Federal government during World War II.

This means that "Marihuana" and hemp can both be legalized again by the Federal government, without any further debate.