posted 01-21-2003 10:24 PM            

LISTEN

http://www.prisonplanet.com/coots_11_22_02.mp3

posted 01-23-2003 09:24 PM            

Police action angers the public

By LOU MICHEL
News Staff Reporter
1/22/2003

Buffalo Police Commissioner Rocco J. Diina says, "I'm asking officers to use their good discretion."

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030122/1028702.asp

Homebound motorists headed to the Kensington Expressway were slowed by this police checkpoint at Tupper and Main streets during Tuesday afternoon's rush hour.

Buffalo police brass aren't promising an end to traffic safety checkpoints that delayed hundreds of motorists Tuesday, but a swiftly drafted policy that could put police commanders in the hot seat may end the rush-hour checkpoints.

The stepped-up police enforcement was not limited to area roadways. Monday night, County Executive Joel A. Giambra was ticketed for "failure to clear approximately 3 inches of snow" from the sidewalk in front of his North Buffalo residence.

Police Commissioner Rocco J. Diina tried to rein in the increased police activity that caused motorists to be late for work, left schoolchildren waiting in 10-degree weather for late school buses and angered the public.

"I'm asking officers to use their good discretion," Diina said. "For those citizens inconvenienced unnecessarily, you have my apology as the Buffalo police commissioner."

But less than three hours after a Tuesday afternoon news conference at which he urged officers to use better discretion, police were at it again, conducting a traffic safety checkpoint at 5 p.m. at one of the busiest exit points from downtown. Police have been issuing tickets for not having children in proper safety seats, not wearing seat belts, having expired inspection and other infractions.

Cars were being stopped on Tupper Street at Main Street, slowing homebound motorists headed for the Kensington Expressway. Officers were also writing parking tickets elsewhere downtown Tuesday evening.

Officers, Diina explained, are frustrated over a number of issues including the city's decision to appeal a police pay raise, criticism of police for lagging in enforcement of drunken driving laws and disproportionate media scrutiny of the department.

But if police hope to gain public support by working more diligently, their efforts could backfire.

"I don't think it was a good thing. The police had traffic backed up onto the Thruway, and it made a lot of people late for work," said Dave Bator, manager of a muffler shop across from the Niagara Street exit to the Thruway. "They had five patrol cars and an unmarked car stopping traffic."

The hourlong checkpoint started at 8 a.m., Bator said, adding that his wife was caught in a similar traffic checkpoint on Seneca Street that caused a huge backup onto Bailey Avenue.

"I thought maybe they were checking for terrorists or maybe there was a huge accident," said Gary S. Farkas of Eggertsville, who was caught in that traffic jam. "I know their job is difficult, but they're not going to get any public sympathy for this."

Linda Gelz, a passenger on a Seneca Street bus, was one of a number of angry citizens who contacted The Buffalo News to complain about the police.

When her bus reached the traffic checkpoint, she said, the officers slowed the vehicle and "leered into the windows and grinned."

Upset at what she saw, Gelz suggested photographs be taken of the officers if it happens again.

"They need to be shown they can't get away with their behavior. Were the shoe on the other foot, they would certainly have us by the neck," Gelz said.

WELCOME TO THE "HOMELAND".

ARE YOU ENJOYING WATCHING THEM BUTCHERING ALL OF OUR RIGHTS?

DO LIKE SLAVERY?

posted 01-23-2003 09:35 PM            

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76298,00.html

**********************************************************************

"What will happen sooner rather than later is probably a biological attack on multiple targets in the center of this country. Probably smallpox in Denver, Cleveland, and Dallas."

posted 01-23-2003 11:49 PM            

******************
The master's finest tool was never the weapon that kept his slaves in submission. Nor was it the one that he provided to the slaves to do his bidding. It is, and has always been, one that will convince slaves they are free in a system of suppression.~Patrick Barry

New World Odor

by Bridget Gibson

Futuristic fiction writers have long tried to envision a world in which no one can make even ordinary motions that are not tracked and watched and catalogued by some shadowy “Big Brother” government. What those writers could not have known is how or why such an intrusive monster would manifest itself into our American society without so much as a blink from most of the citizenry.

The Bush administration now brings the second half of its tenure to a thunderous applause of flag waving patriotism with the unveiling of the “Total Information Awareness“ program. This wonderful new product line will undoubtedly become a household name in a very short while with its astounding powers to snoop and pry into the most mundane of corners. Santa’s list merely consisted of whether you were naughty or nice, but John Poindexter wants his list to have all of the details.

Details from all of your communications (telephone calls, emails and internet web searches), banking, credit card purchases, prescriptions, gun purchases, fertilizer purchases, fuel purchases, school records, medical records, travel history and driver’s license applications will be catalogued and available to government officials and be placed in a supercomputer data bank for analysis and threat assessment purposes.

Will Act II be for the Internal Revenue Service to be placed in the loop for “investigative” purposes also? Will Act III be for the continued privatization of our government and the placement of well-positioned corporations into the loop to better “market” and put their “new” products into your homes?

Even those of you that read these words and believe that our government has the right to remove your privacy and open your curtains and peer into your home and personal activities should take heed. I was raised with the words of my parents ringing in my ears: “You should live your life as though any moment of it could be printed on the front page of newspaper.” Well, thus far my life has not drawn that type of attention, but why would I want anyone knowing all of my habits?

Gone are the carefree days when a search warrant was a necessary invitation for the police to come into your home. I have bid farewell to the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights! With a longing look over my shoulder at the past and future as we knew it, I must bravely understand that all my words of dissent may become fodder for the “data analysts” that will then piece together my grocery habits and attempt to discern my allegiance to the new Fuhrer, George W. Bush.

I am certain that many of you reading my words today will think that I have gone over the top. I could only wish that were so. Our new “Big Brother” comes complete with one of the spookiest of the Iran-Contra spooks at its head: John Poindexter.
For those with short memories, I can only say that our nation’s inability to learn from its own history has doomed us to repeat our worst mistakes. The Reagan Era White House email problems began with the Iran Contra scandal and the fact that shortly before hearings on the scandal were to begin, two figures at the center of the scandal, North and Admiral John Poindexter, secretly deleted thousands of email messages related to the scandal. A backup taping system saved the messages and more than seven million others created during the Reagan presidency. John Poindexter was tried and found guilty of lying to Congress and was subsequently released from prison on a legal technicality.

I cannot trust the current administration to safeguard our Constitution and am witnessing the savaging of our Bill of Rights. I can only ask that you, my fellow citizens, take heed and bear witness, to speak out through all of our differences and help stop the madness.

posted 01-24-2003 12:21 AM            

Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003

JUST ONE EXAMPLE:

SOON POLICE OFFICERS MAY BE ABLE TO FORCE YOU TO THUMBSCAN AT TRAFFIC CHECKPOINTS.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.22:

"SEC. 2156. STRENGTHENING STATE FINGERPRINT TECHNOLOGY.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF MODEL PROGRAM IN EACH STATE TO STRENGTHEN CRIMINAL DATA REPOSITORIES AND FINGERPRINT TECHNOLOGY- The Attorney General shall establish a model program in each State and the District of Columbia for the purpose of improving fingerprinting technology which shall grant to each State funds to either--

(1) purchase Live-Scan fingerprint technology and a State-vehicle to make such technology mobile and these mobile units shall be used to travel within the State to assist in the processing of fingerprint background checks; or

(2) purchase electric fingerprint imaging machines for use throughout the State to send fingerprint images to the Attorney General to conduct background checks."

posted 01-31-2003 09:31 AM            

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/30/nypd.surveillance/

NYPD wants end to political surveillance limits

Thursday, January 30, 2003 Posted: 5:53 AM EST (1053 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The New York City Police Department and the New York Civil Liberties Union battled in federal court Wednesday over whether a 1985 federal decree overly restricts police in terrorism investigations or whether the decree is necessary to protect First Amendment rights.

The NYPD, the defendant in this case, argued that a modified set of standards is necessary following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The NYCLU, the plaintiff, said the new standards would create an unacceptable level of intrusion into the lives of law-abiding political activists.

The decree stems from a 1985 class-action lawsuit settlement which established the Handschu Decree, named after Barbara Handschu -- one of the parties in the suit.

The decree stipulates the NYPD must have sufficient cause to conduct surveillance on individuals or groups, specifically a lead that causes police to believe an individual or group will commit a crime.

The decree does not allow police officers to perform surveillance if they suspect an individual of potentially plotting a terrorist attack, when that person has otherwise acted in a lawful manner.

"That's a problem," said NYPD lawyer Gail Donahue, "[because of] the covert nature of covert actions on the part of terrorist groups."

The new, modified Handschu decree would bring the standards to the "constitutional floor," said NYCLU lawyer Martin Stolar -- in other words, to the lowest level of protection afforded by the Constitution.

"The city aims to gut protections that were put in place 15 years ago," said Donna Lieberman, the NYCLU's executive director. "The changed word makes it all the more important to protect these rights."

The motion to modify the guidelines was filed in federal court last September and included an affidavit from NYPD Deputy Commission David Cohen, formerly with the CIA for 35 years, that said the current guidelines restrict the NYPD's ability to prevent terrorist acts.

Friday, Cohen sent Judge Charles Haight a letter that if the modified guidelines were accepted, the NYPD would adopt a series of internal guidelines very similar to guidelines set by Attorney General John(A$$crack) Ashcroft for the FBI in 2002.

Lawyers for the NYCLU said this "promise" to create internal guidelines and the NYPD's proposed enforcement of the guidelines was not a sufficient compromise.

posted 02-01-2003 04:48 PM            

Friendly Fire
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe

N E W Y O R K, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

• Pentagon: Bin Laden Location Is 'Anybody's Guess'
• Price on Bin Laden's Head Has Its Complications
• How Hollywood Is Helping Out the War Effort


Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.

posted 02-02-2003 06:23 PM            

Bush backs Big Brother database

CNET News.com

A forthcoming U.S. government database will compile information from all federal agencies and the private sector on people deemed possible terrorist threats, President Bush said in his State of the Union address.

Mr. Bush used the speech to announce the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), a mammoth data-collection project intended to fuse information collected domestically by police and internationally by spy agencies.

"Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect all our citizens," Bush said to applause from the joint houses of Congress.

The White House offered few details about how TTIC will evolve, but critics of an existing data-mining program under development by the U.S. government were quick to draw comparisons to the controversial Total Information Awareness (TIA) project. Last week, citing privacy concerns, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to slap restrictions on that agency, which is run by Adm. John Poindexter at the Defense Department.

"It's potentially a huge repository of information concerning American citizens," David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said of the TTIC. "There's nothing in what has been made publicly available that would contain a limitation on such collection. To what extent, if any, will this system collect and maintain information on U.S. citizens?"

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to questions on Wednesday about what information on Americans would be accessible to the TTIC. One government official with knowledge of the center, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was not designed to supplant Mr. Poindexter's efforts but was instead "an effort by the president to bring together elements of agencies that are focused on terrorism."

Mr. Bush's announcement of the TTIC is the latest step in a massive push after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to increase data-sharing between U.S. police and spy agencies. Congress removed many barriers to data exchange in the USA Patriot Act, and Attorney General John Ashcroft in September 2002 announced rules designed to formalize the "sharing of information between federal law enforcement and the U.S. intelligence community."

Mr. Ashcroft applauded the project in a statement distributed after Mr. Bush's speech. "The TTIC will ensure that terrorist threat-related information is integrated and analyzed comprehensively across agency lines and then provided to the federal, state and local officials who need it most," Mr. Ashcroft said. "We will be able to optimize our ability to analyze information, form the most comprehensive possible threat picture and develop the plans we need to prevent terrorist attacks."

The project's head, once selected, will report to CIA Director George Tenet. The center will operate in collaboration with the FBI and the new Department of Homeland Security and have access to "all intelligence information" available to the government, including data collected by the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency.

TTIC also will "maintain an up-to-date database of known and suspected terrorists that will be accessible to federal and nonfederal officials and entities, as appropriate," according to a fact sheet prepared by the White House.

Lee Tien, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said: "Maybe their strategy is to duck all those questions and go ahead with programs that don't have any connection to Poindexter and get away from the swamp that TIA is in. It sounds to me that in anticipation of folks like [Sen. Chuck] Grassley, who have complained about the Defense Department being involved domestically, they're trying to ward off that criticism."

Mr. Grassley, a prominent Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance committee, this month lent his voice to the growing criticism of the Pentagon's TIA project. Mr. Grassley said he was concerned that the FBI was closer to using that project than it had previously acknowledged. Last year, Mr. Bush chose Mr. Poindexter to oversee TIA, a move that drew sharp criticism because of the former admiral's central involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Grassley said the senator would review the TTIC proposal but did not immediately have a comment.

It's not clear how much data-mining TTIC will do, but the White House's description says it will "fuse and analyze all-source information" and ensure that "information from all sources is shared, integrated, and analyzed seamlessly."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has introduced a bill to regulate "data-mining technology" in use by the government that could, if enacted, apply to TTIC.

The TTIC is charged both with overseeing a "national counterterrorism tasking and requirements system" and with maintaining shared databases.

That means the center will be able to order the FBI, CIA or NSA to collect information on someone, according to Jim Dempsey, the executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

posted 02-03-2003 09:24 PM            

Hollywood Rallies Round the Homeland
By TODD S. PURDUM

ASHINGTON
NOT long into "The Recruit," Hollywood's latest take on the perils of espionage, Al Pacino, portraying a seen-it-all C.I.A. recruiter, tries to hire Colin Farrell, a misfit M.I.T. student cryptographer whose father may have been a spy murdered in Uncle Sam's secret service.

"Would I have to kill anyone?" the Farrell character asks. Mr. Pacino's recruiter replies, "Would you like to?"

Advertisement

Later, addressing his students at the Central Intelligence Agency's super-secret training center known as the Farm, Mr. Pacino declares, "I say we are all here in this room because we believe." He adds, "Our cause is just."

"The Recruit," which opened on Friday, is a roller-coaster thriller of the sort that might have been made almost any time during the cold war, although today's agents-in-training speak Persian, not Russian. Its villain turns out to be unnervingly close to home — and Mr. Pacino's assertions take on bitter meaning, proof of the instructor's presciently paranoid warning to his recruits that "nothing is what it seems."

But this movie also lands in a culture newly stirred by the danger and derring-do of the national security state and, polls show, newly willing to entertain using even the dirtiest trick of assassination as the best defense against terror on the apparent eve of war. Big and small screens are awash in portrayals of honorable officials struggling to hold back a menacing tide. Even President Bartlet, the relentless idealist of "The West Wing" on NBC, sanctioned the secret killing of a foreign official last fall for sponsoring terrorism.

Of course, current television series from "The Agency" to "Alias" make ample references to the darker side of America's vast military-intelligence machine. But the tone is more often that of Kiefer Sutherland, who plays a C.I.A. counterterrorism agent in the critically acclaimed Fox series "24." Recently he exploded in frustration: "You want results, but you don't want to get your hands dirty!"

Out is the hair shirt of Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat whose mid-70's investigations into C.I.A. assassination plots shocked Washington. Out, too, are the fictional reflections that followed, like "Three Days of the Condor" (1975), in which Robert Redford's C.I.A. researcher was menaced by a rogue operation within the agency and he burst out: "You know, you guys are amazing. You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth."

In, instead, are the black turtlenecks, leather jackets, shades, cellphones and stubble of the latest generation of clandestine operatives. One of the executive producers of "The Agency" on CBS is Shaun Cassidy (yes, that Shaun Cassidy, who has made a second post-teen idol career behind the scenes in television). The show was conceived before Sept. 11, but he said the attacks changed the way it plays.

"For me personally, a show about an organization that was pretty much viewed as a very dark and nefarious place suddenly became much more gray, post 9/11," he said. "The public's attitude about the C.I.A. and what it did and continues to do became much more forgiving. Suddenly, the Bill Casey days of getting the job done and the ends justifying means didn't seem so terrible. We show an agency that is subjectively right, depending on the character, or wrong, depending on the character."

The change in attitude has been gradual. The 70's revelations about C.I.A. coup attempts and other skulduggery gave way to the Carter administration's seeming powerlessness in the Iranian hostage crisis and the Reagan-era rebound in defense spending and the end of the cold war. By the 1990's, with the cold war over and prosperity reigning at home, the C.I.A. came to be seen as almost an afterthought.

posted 02-06-2003 02:07 PM            

By Dorothy Anne Seese

The Truth We Can't Face By: Dorothy Anne Seese

It's taken for granted. We're America, the United States of America, the world's only superpower, and we are the leaders of the free world. We are US. Flags fly, cars sport decals and bumper stickers. People wear lapel pins with our flag and perhaps a slogan. At important events, even the President can speak about God and prayer with impunity. The world is supposed to fear us, obey us, and allow us to lead, our military might is second to none. Our citizens are the world's free people.

Now, can we get down to reality? The show is over, the stage is dark and the curtain is down. We have to go back outside and face the day, or the night.

No nation with a sinking economy and continuing depletion of resources is a free nation. It is a dependent nation.

No country where the unemployment is rising, costs and prices are rising, and businesses are moving to other countries can long call itself a free nation. It is an interdependent nation at best.

No people who look to the government to solve their problems from cradle to grave can look in the mirror and call themselves a free people. At best they are dependents, at worst they are serfs.

Any country that abandons its hard precious metal standards (gold and silver) as the United States did in 1934 and 1973, respectively, and operates on funny money cannot sustain either a free economy or a free country.

Uneducated people who cannot think, regardless of the number of diplomas or degrees they obtain, can never be free. They can't handle freedom.

A nation that must monitor every move of every citizen, using technology to keep people in captivity or fear of captivity, is not a nation of free people. Worse, when the people willingly surrender what basic freedoms they have in exchange for an IOU marked "security" they aren't even thinking like free people -- even if they are or were up to the signing of the exchange.

Representatives of the people who willingly obey a mandate to approve bills drafted by the executive branch of government, abdicating their responsibility to be the legislators, are not free, and they do not represent a free people. Free people do not retain such false representatives, and free people do not allow the leader of one branch of government to dominate all others. That is espousing, condoning and upholding tyranny.

A managed media does not represent a free people and free people do not tolerate a managed media. One of our basic First Amendment rights is to a free press.

Free people never let any government official rise to the level of total control, because free people insist that the government work for them, not enslave them.

And free people know the difference between the appearance of freedom, and true freedom.

Is America a nation of free people by these standards? No.

Is America a prosperous nation when it has corporations moving to every nation on earth to make goods at lower prices so that their American consumers don't have their former jobs to purchase the products? Yet Microsoft, the last "American Dream" company of a kid who worked on electronics becoming the richest man in America, is moving piece by piece to India, where labor is cheaper and in many cases the people have a better work ethic.

No matter what familiar name brand you choose to buy -- from General Electric to Fruit of the Loom -- the goods are not made in America any longer. A few items may be made here, but look at the labels on the boxes (the kind of boxes that had to be re-labeled for a presidential appearance) because they read "Made in China."

In the midst of the longest running recession in America's 227-year history, we're in an economic state that the government calls "slow recovery" and the Federal Reserve calls "soft spots." Those are nice words, but in reality, America is broke. Its people are feeling the pinch, living off the capital built up in days when things were brighter and better. Perhaps the last great rainbow to shine on America's economy was the dotcom explosion that left so many disenchanted investors and bankrupt capitalists and entrepreneurs in a heap of rubbish at the bottom of the rainbow. There was no gold there and in some cases there have been and will be prison bars.

Our march away from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the founders' dreams is strewn with promises by government for more of everything for everyone. It can't be done. Other nations have tried it and failed. Once great colonial powers are now insignificant countries like the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. And yes, the sun does set on the British Empire.

China and India are claiming a large share of the technology business. Other countries are making textiles, shoes and appliances. We who live in the USA cannot afford to buy our own products. What does that tell you about the United States? We've outpriced our ability to afford ourselves. And we didn't see it coming.

Most of what we produce in the US is either housing, automobiles, a few durable goods such as washers and dryers, but the big businesses here are service organizations. And we have the smaller businesses such as air conditioning and automotive repair.

No nation can continue to exist when it does not produce for domestic consumption and exports. The US is still a major exporter of foodstuffs. For how long, who knows? We can now buy grapes in January because they come from Chile. And we buy them. Our trade deficit grows like those grapes.

For all who expect great tax cuts, cheaper prices at the marketplaces, assistance with medical costs, government protection from boogie-men and terrorists without losing our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, let me say you cannot handle the truth. The truth is that we're in bad times, surveillance is everywhere, the Bill of Rights is used by liberal judges to take freedom from some and give to others, and our elected Congressional delegations of Representatives and Senators are looking for votes, not for the best interests of either the nation or the people.

Congress is even willing to delegate its power ... its sole power ... to declare war, and give it to the office of the president.

The lawmakers on Capitol Hill are busy protecting you from using your land to the detriment of plants and animals, worms and fishes when people need jobs. So we import our lumber and other goods, increasing our trade deficit.

And if it is true that in 1967, then-president Lyndon B. Johnson emptied Fort Knox of our gold reserves, then all that needs to happen is for the European Union and its bankers to return to a gold standard and America will be left with a mint full of funny money equal to conch shells on the world trade market.

An old song said "everybody wants to rule the world." That isn't quite the whole truth. Some want to own it, and those who do are well on their way to achieving that end.

That's the truth we cannot face, particularly when we're sending our youths off to fight a war against "evil" when even The Shadow knew that evil lurks in the hearts of men.

When we as a public can face these truths and make our government own up to them, we just might find a way back out of the mire and the muck, the morass and the manure. Otherwise, we can still say we're free because we know how to change channels on the remote.

No person can be free when they cannot handle the truth, nor can lies ever be exposed and deficits corrected until we know the truth. If we cannot handle the truth, we cannot handle freedom.

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

posted 02-06-2003 06:07 PM            

The White House Continues To Defy the Constitution

John C. Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston with the Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7196

Lost in the debate about whether or not our nation should wage war on Iraq is a fundamental question: Who has the power to decide?

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War...." This simple and clear language requires that the decision of whether or not we go to war must be made by the legislative branch. By definition it specifically prohibits the president from making that decision, as the authors of the Constitution deemed the power to wage war to be too great to place in the hands of one individual.

[T]he decision of whether or not we go to war must be made by the legislative branch.

In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution that gave President Bush the power to fight terrorism. A loose reading of it would lead one to believe that it gave him the power to start wars. But the content of it does not issue a declaration of war against any nation. Rather, it states that the president "has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States...." It does not and cannot alter the express language of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could do so.

U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.) opposed the resolution because he thought it was unconstitutional. In his October 3 remarks on the Senate floor he spoke of the framers of the Constitution who foresaw "the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the framers bestowed on Congress, not the president, the power to declare war." He quoted James Madison, who wrote in 1793:

In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man....

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard a series of cases challenging the authority of the executive branch to wage war. In Orlando v. Laird, the court reiterated an earlier opinion that "the constitutional delegation of the war-declaring power to the Congress contains a discoverable and manageable standard imposing on the Congress a duty of mutual participation in the prosecution of war." Relying on that, the court asked "whether there is any action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity in question."

The core of the Orlando ruling is this: "[T]he Congress and the Executive have taken mutual and joint action in the prosecution and support of military operations in Southeast Asia from the beginning of those operations." The court cited the following evidence to support this holding: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; the congressional appropriation of billions of dollars to implement operations in Southeast Asia; and Congress' extension of the Military Selective Service Act, which was done with Vietnam in mind.

A challenge to the president's authority to wage war against Iraq would highlight the fact that no such legal groundings exist in this case. Congress has yet to pass any military appropriation acts for this war and has yet to initiate a military draft. The only action Congress has taken is the passage of the resolution last October which, far from declaring war, allows the president to fight terrorism but does not allow him to launch into war against another country.

Very few members of Congress who voted for the Iraq resolution thought they were handing President Bush war-making powers. Just read the statements made on the floors of the House and the Senate by the resolution's proponents. Also, on Jan. 24, 2003, 123 members of Congress sent a letter to the president stating that "the US should make every attempt to achieve Iraq's disarmament through diplomatic means and with the full support of our allies." Of the signers, 22 had voted for the resolution.

posted 02-08-2003 03:34 PM            

http://www.dailyoklahoman.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=983399&pic=none&TP=getarticle

Goldsby selected for bioterrorism drill
2003-02-07
By Nick Trougakos
The Oklahoman

The U.S. Army will dump powdered egg whites, grain alcohol and several other substances on the town of Goldsby as part of a mock bioterrorism attack, state officials confirmed Thursday.

The Homeland Security Chemical/Biological Umbrella will be conducted by the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Residents of Goldsby, a town of about 800 in northern McClain County, started receiving letters explaining the procedure this week, state Environmental Quality Department spokeswoman Monty Elder said.

The letter says the Army will conduct tests over "rural areas southwest of Oklahoma City."

The letter says airplanes will release "small amounts of harmless materials" over the area. The materials are intended to mock chemical or biological agents and test the ability of weather radar to detect them.

The materials also include powdered clay, polyethylene glycol and an inactive pest control called Bacillus thuringiensis.

"These materials were selected because they are harmless to humans and the environment and because their physical properties allow radar to 'see' them just like materials that might be used in a terrorist attack," according to the letter.

The Oklahoma City area was chosen because of its sophisticated weather radar networks, according to the letter.

A similar test was conducted in April near Key West, Fla.

Employees at Goldsby businesses said they view the test as a positive.

"It's kind of exciting for the area," said Marcum's Nursery employee Deanna Bevel, who received a letter showing a map of the area where material would be dropped. "If they use what they say they're going to use, there's no problem with it."

Libby Adkins, owner of Libby's Kitchen, joked that townspeople could use some excitement.

"It wouldn't bother me," Adkins said.

The tests will be conducted Feb. 24 to March 7 and April 21 to May 7 and will involve an airplane dropping material along a half-mile path from about 1,000 feet above the ground.

The dropped material should not show up at ground level, according to the letter, but EPA officials will be on site as monitors.

McClain County Sheriff Don Hewett said he had not seen the letter and is worried people might be unaware of the test.

"I guarantee you, we're going to get 500 phone calls," he said. "And they should be calling about something like that."

Hewett said the airplanes will take off and land at Goldsby Airport.

posted 02-08-2003 04:24 PM            

I do realize that we are in some of the most dangerous times in World History, because we face the prospective reality of terrorists with nukes and other weapons of mass destruction.

As an optimist, I am hoping we can get through the coming war without one of those weapons being used. As a realist, however, I realize that to do nothing would be to invite the absolute certainty of their use on American soil in an act of terrorism. Better to wipe out the terrorist before they wipe out us. If they had nukes, they would have used them on 9/11. It's just a matter of time.

The Bush administration is saving the world by pre-empting this possibility by taking out Iraq first, in my opinion. Next stop; North Korea. Bush has not ruled out the nuclear option with North Korea however, because, due to Clinton's carefully planned decimation of the US military, we no longer have the capability of a two front war. If N. Korea makes a move when we are engaged with Iraq, we may unfortunately be forced into going Nuclear.

This situation exists due to the reality that there are evil tyrants in the world (and I include Clinton among them). If we do nothing, they only grow stronger and kill millions more. If we take pre-emptive action, we may face immediate hardships, but ensure the future survival of civilization itself. Wait any longer until Sadam and North Korea become established nuclear powers linked to a network of terrorists, then we will surely have invited the WWIII and the end of civilization itself. I see President G.W. Bush, guiding the US military to prevent this terrible possibility, as a savior of humanity in that sense.

posted 02-08-2003 04:37 PM            

Absolute baloney...There is NO difference between Bush and Clinton. BOTH are NWO minions.

The ONLY "TERRORISTS" we should be worried about is the Bush Administration perpetrting attacks on American soil(like 9-11, and Oklhoma City, and WACO) in order to push forward its plan for a global tyrannical government run by a handful of unaccountable elitists.

Iraq is no threat to us...PERIOD.

"--- due to Clinton's carefully planned decimation of the US military, we no longer have the capability of a two front war.---"

Yeah so BUSH will have the excuse to use FOREIGN TROOPS ON AMERICAN SOIL to "protect" us" while the wars go on overseas.

The only "evil tyrants of this world are Bush, Clinton, Hussein and all others involved in the NWO conspiracy....PERIOD.

If you welcome a global government...you are no better.

All the bombing in th world won't stop "terrorism"...because that "terrorism" is committed by the very same people who decry it.

Bush wants war in Afganistn and Iraq for OIL, HEROIN, MINERALS and CONTROL (i.e. Global government)....end of story

posted 02-08-2003 06:11 PM            

Bush wants war in Afganistn and Iraq for OIL, HEROIN, MINERALS and CONTROL (i.e. Global government)....end of story

mech if bush wanted oil why iraq ? why a country with WMD ? why not just roll into kuwait...whoopse we did that..ugghh...hmmm...why didn't we take their oil ?...or shoot how about saudi...we already have a base their why not take their oil ?

this is a war to remove a sadistic dictator...you mark my words you anarchist pig...the people of iraq will be dancing in the streets after the U.S is done...

2 weeks and it's all over...book-it

and as a side note...I hope n.korea is next...anyone catch 60 minutes last week ?

korean mothers are giving their babies rat poison so they will die a less painful death than starvation...ever seen the sat photo of s. and n. korea ?

nuts don't need nuclear weapons...same as monkeys like mech don't need computers...

see what happens ?
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000424.html

posted 02-08-2003 08:09 PM            

BILLY:"---Get a load of this, theseeker! Mech is blaming the Bush administration for the acts of Clinton.----"

NO...AGAIN you are putting words in people's mouth. NEVER have I defended Bill Clinton. OK was a NWO Black OP...to pass unconstitutional laws...passed by Clinton and Congress. Just like 9-11 was the excuse to pass MORE unconstitutional laws and begin the first steps twarda global..NEW WORLD ORDER.

You have a right to deny this. Our rights aren't TOTALLY gone yet.

If you like tyranny...by all means keep kissing up to big brother.

posted 02-08-2003 08:53 PM            

ABSOLUTELY 100% THE TRUTH....YES

Can YOU honestly say that we have a trustworthy Federal government?

If you do....YOU are part of the problem.

BJM---"It appears that there is no set of facts that will convince you to any other reality than that which you have already pre-determined in your own mind.---"

Ehhhhh WRONG. READ a little bit here that has been posted. 90% of is HYPERLINKED to news sources around this country.

You are simply IN DENIAL....Period.

You wouldn't know honesty if it jumped up and bit you.

BJM:---" An honest discussion can't be had with a person like this."

Then why do you bother to try to prove me wrong?