She was wrong in that aspect. The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with Israel or America defending Israel. If anything, America has prevented Israel from defending itself as it should.
--- In [email protected], Larry Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > REPOSTS #2 ON: 08-12-AD2005 Archived at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LLNews5 Out:03:45pm > Join and check http://groups.yahoo.com/group/govtwatch4 for the BEST in the latest headlines and news! > HTML Copies of this newsletter are in LLNews5 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldcom > To be eliminated from future mai lings just re ply with RE / MOVE in the subject line, and email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Since Yahoo ID's are sometimes DELETED, USE ABOVE EMAIL ADDRESS TO CORRESPOND ^ ^ ^ > > > Breaking News! Please forward & Post! > > ALIPAC Supporters: Our people felt you would all want this breaking news as soon as possible. > > CA: Carlsbad illegal immigration rally a great success! Speeches & Photos! > Click here to read the report, see photos, and hear the extraordinary speeches by Jim Gilchrist, Dr. Cosmon, Vasquez, Senator Morrow, & Congressman Tom Tancredo! Special thanks to http://minutemanparty.com/ for providing these audio files for everyone. > > http://www.alipac.us/article-610-thread-1-0.html > > New Mexico Governor declares state of emergency due to spreading anarchy! > http://www.alipac.us/article-608-thread-1-0.html > > Mexican Government Criticizes NM Governor for declaring state of emergency! > http://www.alipac.us/article-609-thread-1-0.html > > > --------------------------------- > > (Now you'll understand why all these zionist PIGS of the controlled media are squeeling so loudly!) > > Cindy Sheehan - My Son Died For Israel, Not America > > > Cindy, > > Skeeter asked me to send our your letter to Nightline. I did already and believe you got a copy, as below. I added your name to the bull yard list, along with Judge P on the stuff I send out. John Hibbs wrote how to sign up for bullyard even without ever sending it anything. He is back and may write you again. I notice he wrote you with great sympathy. He, along with you and about three others in the Band, I would really love to meet personally. I, like Skeeter who sends me about 10 emails (mostly cartoons) may be sending TOO much, as I think I tend to do. > > Keep up your good efforts, and have a good weekend. I hope to learn more about you: where you live, your family, work etc. Time will tell. > > Tony > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL > PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005 > > That was my son's unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04. Here is a letter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast: > Love > > Cindy Sheehan > > March 15, 2005 > > To Whom it May Concern: > > Imagine my distress when I turned Night Line on last night and I was confronted with the gory details of my son's murder in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq on 04/04/04. Imagine, also, my sorrow and rage at the side of the story that you presented to the American public. > > I was on the Night Line Townhall Meeting in Washington, DC on 01/27/05. After I spoke (which I think was a fluke), Ted Koppel dismissed me as being "emotional." First of all, how can I approach this discussion without emotions, MY SON WAS KILLED, AND KILLED FOR LIES? Second of all, that show was not fair and balanced and I think the conclusion "Should we stay" was foregone. > > The show last night was also not fair and balanced. To see all the wives being interviewed who had not lost their husbands and to hear what "hard work" it is to be left behind when their husbands are at war. How hard to you think it is to have a child killed in an illegal and immoral war? In this "wonderful" group of families left behind, we had exactly ONE of the wives call us..she is Diane Rose who was my son's Colonel, Frank Rose's wife. The last time we heard from Diane was in October and we feel we have been left behind by anyone connected to the 2-5 Cavalry. Is support only given if your loved one stays alive? One wife was quoted as saying that Sundays were the hardest for the families left behind. My son was killed on Palm Sunday last year..how does anybody think Sundays are for my family? > > A distraught father who lost his son was shown telling how much his life was so adversely affected. Why wasn't a mother (like me) who has been an outspoken critic of this war and of the President's policies interviewed for this piece? Why wasn't I given a chance to talk about 04/04/04 and the series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations that led to my precious oldest child's death?? > > General Chiarelli was quoted as saying that 04/04/04 was a "wake up" call to the 2-5 Cavalry. If he thinks it was a "wake up" call, let me tell you how having 3 Army officers come to my door on 04/04/04 and tell me that my darling son was KIA. I have learned so many details of that day and of my son's experience in Iraq. > > The very first thing that went wrong happened in November at Ft Irwin, California...the 2-5 Cavalry went for desert training. They received open desert warfare training and my son was killed in an urban guerilla attack, which he hadn't been trained for. Also, he was wearing an inadequate helmet and a Vietnam era flak jacket. Casey was stationed in a very dangerous place, like the General said: FOB War Eagle. I have subsequently learned that the soldiers of the 2-5 Cav who were stationed outside of Baghdad had Kevlar body armor. I have also found out that Casey slept in the back of his Humvee for the last 2 weeks of his life because there wasn't any room on post for him to have a cot. How tired and overworked was he before he went into that battle on 04/04/04? > > In addition, my son was killed after L. Paul Bremer inflamed the Shi'a by taking away their tv station and newspapers. The Abu Ghraib scandal was about to break in America...but it was well known by the Iraqi people that their citizens were being tortured and defiled in the prisons. My son was a sitting duck by the time 04/04/04 rolled around. > > The very worst thing of all, is that my son was sent to rescue some fellow soldiers trapped in an ambush in the back of a LMTV..which is basically an open air trailer. It would be the equivalent of driving through Dallas on 11/22/63 in a Convertible. The troops stationed at FOB War Eagle were sent ahead of their tanks and Bradleys!!! They had to go into battle in the back of LMTV's and non-armored Humvees. This is just proof to me that our troops are as important to their leaders as bullets are. It is a small miracle that only 7 of them were killed in the ambush. Luckily for the rest of the moms, it was dark. After my son's murder, there was an article in Stars and Stripes that quoted one of Casey's superior officers as saying. "04 April taught us a lesson. We won't send soldiers to battle without their armor any more." How do you think that made me feel? It was like "OOOPS, your dear son was killed. Life happens. Oh well, you live and learn." The General was also quoted as saying > that the insurgency "surprised" them. Why? Has there ever been an invasion/occupation of a sovereign country that hasn't been resisted? Anyone with half a brain and an even rudimentary understanding of history would know that all occupations are resisted. The Pentagon and the Army brass did not plan adequately for an occupation. > > Then Gen. Chiarelli said the thing that upset me the most. He said that the loss of life was terrible, but at least Iraqis had elections on 01/30/05. With the continuuing insurgency and with Iraqis and Americans losing their lives everyday there, how can he be proud of that? I may remind you and the General, that Iraqi elections was not the reason that our President and his Neo-Con war mongers invaded Iraq with our precious human resources. I will give the two reasons given for the invaseion here: Saddam had WMD's and he was an imminent threat to America. Saddam could have WMD's on our shores within 45 minutes. Condoleeza Rice used fear as a factor when she said: Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. Rumsfeld and Colin Powell pointed out to us where the weapons were on a map. > > The second reason that America was given before the invasion was that Saddam was the biggest sponsor of world terrorism and he supported Osama Bin Laden! Oh really??? The hijackers were predominantly Saudi Arabian as was Osama (who is still at large, by the way). The theory that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was disproven by the 9/11 commission's report. A huge factor in Americans believing all this bull is that our media..the Fourth Estate didn't do any research and expose the lies for what they were: justifications for invading a country that posed no imminent or long-term threat to America. > > One reason that the President DID NOT give for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was so that Iraqis could have elections. As a matter of fact, that was Ayatollah Ali al Sistani's idea..not Bush's. If the president in his lying and betraying in the lead up and rush to this insane invasion had told the world that we were going over there to give Iraqi's elections, would we the people have gone along with the invasion? Would we as compassionate Americans have thought that it would have been worth billions and billions of dollars; hundreds of our amazing children dead; tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children dead: a country lying in ruins? I don't think so. I certainly didn't raise my son to be an outstanding citizen of the world to go and die so some people could have ink-stained fingers!!! If anyone reading this has children, would you think it was worth it?? Instead of some Congress leaders showing ink-stained fingers at the SOTU address they should have held up > blood soaked hands. > > Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse. > > It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who lost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to have just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. That would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exhibit these qualities. > > I also think that Mr. Koppel owes me an apology for the rude way I was treated on his show. After I expressed myself about the war being based on lies and that the troops should be brought home immediately because the war was based on lies, I was not thanked for my comments, or my son's sacrifice. He just said to keep the discussion away from emotions. Then, the wife of a soldier who was killed was allowed to speak and she praised the policies of this deplorable and despicable administration, and she was thanked and praised by the panel. > > Also, another aspect that Mr. Koppel refused to acknowledge was when a man walked up to a microphone and asked Richard Perle to explain PNAC..he was rudely ignored. > > I am so glad the First Cavalry came home from this senseless and needless war based on the imaginations of Neo-Cons and fought with ignorance and arrogance by the Commander in Chief and the Pentagon. I am thrilled for the mothers whose children didn't come home under the cover of darkness in flag-draped boxes like my son did. I am sure that some of Casey's buddies were able to walk off the plane because of his sacrifice. I am just so deeply sorry that my son's blood had to be their leaders' lesson in how to occupy a country and fight an insurgency. My son is dead forever and my joy has been robbed from me for the rest of my life. > > Your show needs to show both sides of this debate and stop being a propanda tool for this administration. This is my challenge to you from a true patriot who wants the lies exposed. > > Love and Peace!!! > Cindy Sheehan > Mother of Hero: Spc Casey Austin Sheehan KIA 04/04/04 > Casey's Peace Page > Co-Founder of Gold Star Families For Peace > http://www.gsfp.org/ > > > > --------------------------------- > > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers164.html > > The Most Honorable Thing a Patriot Could Do > > by Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers > > Fight for your country my friends. Fight for the poor > and destitute. Fight for the&nbs p;poor children who will > never again have a father or mother. Fight for the > aged and the handicapped. Fight for truth, justice, > and peace. > > Fight for your country. Do not fight for a political > belief. Do not lay down your life for criminals, > liars, and thieves. Fight to put those same criminals > where they belong: In prison. > > Fight for your country do not fight for someone > else's country. Do not die far off in some foreign > land. Do not die for the greed of an emperor or king. > Fight to protect your homes and your loved& nbsp;ones - for > there is nothing in this world more important than > that. And if the Good Lord blesses you with health, a > happy family, and love, and you one-day die in your > sleep as a righteous old man or woman, rejoice that > you stood for truth in your days on this earth. For > you shall surely be rewarded by Him. > > There is a test of wills going on right now in > Crawford, Texas. It is a test of wills between a > loving mother who lost her child her child in a > war built on lies and deceit and a&nbs p;man who is > representing the one we know as the supreme > personification of evil. This man is a despicable > liar. This man is a mass murderer as well as those > who associate with and support him. They must be > stopped and they will be stopped. Need proof? Just > look at this one woman's faith. As you know, faith can > move mountains. > > Help support Cindy Sheehan in her efforts to stop this > insane war. Help stop this war that is killing untold > numbers of innocent children. Put an end to this > disastrous war that is bankrupting you and your > children's future as well as destroying your > country. > > Join with me as I plan on visiting Cindy and bringing > a message of peace and support from the people of > Japan. In-spite of what the mainstream mass media in > the USA says, the average Japanese thinks this war is > just as insane as the man who created it. And I want > to let the American people know about it. Please, if > you can, join Cindy too and show your support. Show > the criminals and the king that you will not > tolerate the Land of the&nbs p;Free becoming an > international pariah. > > I plan on leaving on Monday morning (Japan time) and > hopefully arriving in Texas by Wednesday Thursday at > the latest. Won't you please come and show your > support for the truth and show your support for what > America is really supposed to stand for? > > If you cannot come yourself and personally support > Cindy how about sending flowers in lieu of your > presence? It's easy. Amazon has a beautiful bouquet of > red roses on sale now for $20 off at $19.99. > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000261PP6/lewrockwell/002-3568960-54 72032 > > So please friends, help Cindy to fight for peace. Help > her as she fights for the truth. Help her to end this > senseless, criminal killing. After all, in the end, > she is not only fighting for her child, she is > fighting for yours and mine too. Isn't that worth a > small showing of your support? > > I can think of no nobler cause than saving the lives > of children. Can you? > > Here is the information you will need to send flowers > to Cindy in a show of support: > > The Crawford Peace House > 9142&nb sp;5th Street > Crawford, TX. 76638-3037 > Tel: 254-486-0099 > > August 13, 2005 > > Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers was born and raised in the USA > and moved to Japan in 1984. He has the distinction of > being fired from every FM radio station in Tokyo one > of them three times. His first book, Schizophrenic in > Japan, is now on sale. > > "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-George Orwell > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. > It ;is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the > people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who > mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good > masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Great empires cannot subsist without great armies, and liberty cannot subsist with them." - Cato, anti-federalist > > > > --------------------------------- > > (This was important enough I wanted to put the whole text before you.) > > > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/brit-a10.shtml > Blair lays down framework for police state in BritainStatement of the Socialist Equality Party (Britain) > 10 August 2005 > Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author > > The measures announced August 5 by Prime Minister Tony Blair under the pretext of combating terrorism show how fully his government views democratic rights to be incompatible with its warmongering internationally and its pro-business agenda at home. > > Blair used his monthly press conference to announce measures openly directed against immigrants and Muslims, but which set the stage for attacks on the right to free speech and for the criminalisation of all forms of political dissent. > > Prior to Blair's appearance, Home Secretary Charles Clarke had drawn up new grounds for deportation and exclusion for what the government arbitrarily deems to be a list of "unacceptable behaviours." These measures encompassed not merely those involved with terrorist groups or those charged with financing terrorism, activities already proscribed, but included anyone seen as presenting an indirect threat to national security, public order, the rule of law in the UK or the UK's good relations with a third country. > > Any non-British citizen or naturalised British citizen living anywhere in the world, using any means whatsoeverincluding writing, producing, publishing or distributing material, public speaking including preaching, running a website, or using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leaderto express views which the government considers illegitimate can be targeted. > > The list of unacceptable behaviours includes: > > Fomenting terrorism or encouraging others to carry out terrorist acts; justifying or glorifying terrorism, fomenting other serious criminal activity or provoking others to serious criminal acts; fostering hatred that may lead to intra-community violence in the UK; and advocating violence in furtherance of particular beliefs. > > Anyone not covered by these sweeping criteria could still face deportation or exclusion from the country if he is considered by the government to express "extreme views" that are "in conflict with the UK's culture of tolerance." > > In announcing his intent to push through these measures in the next parliament, Blair made clear that he would tolerate no constitutional or legal impediment. > > "These issues will, of course, be tested in the courts," he stated, explaining that previous attempts by the government to deport people back to repressive regimes were struck down for contravening Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." > > Blair dismissed such considerations, claiming that following the July 7 bombings in London, "the circumstances of our national security have now self-evidently changed." > > If the judiciary attempted to block deportations, he would "legislate further, including, if necessary amending the Human Rights Act," which formally commits Britain to upholding the ECHR. > > Blair indicated just how extensive the government's campaign of surveillance would be, adding bookshops to the list of targets previously cited by the home secretary. He also made clear that anti-terrorism legislation criminalising the "condoning or glorifying of terrorism" would have effect anywhere in the world and would be applied retrospectively. > > A new court procedure is to be established in which a pre-trial hearing could take place in a closed non-jury court. The government is also sympathetic to police requests that the time limit for detaining those suspected of terrorism without charge be extended from 14 days to three months. > > A number of radical Islamic organisations are to be proscribed, including Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This group has never been directly linked to terrorism. Blair declared that the government would "also examine the grounds of proscription to widen them." > > New powers will be brought forward to close mosques and other places of worship "used as a centre for fomenting extremism" and a list of Imams drawn up who are to be banned from preaching in Britain. > > British nationals not covered by these measures will face the extended use of the control orders announced previously, which amount to a form of house arrest and prohibit any social or political contact not specifically authorised by the state. > > With these measures, Blair has laid out the framework for a police state. > > Although carried out in the name of the fight against terrorism, there is no responsibility to prove a direct connection with terrorist acts or groups before individuals can be deported or imprisoned and organisations proscribed. > > The all-embracing character of what is now proclaimed as unacceptable behaviour means that anyone opposing the British occupation of Iraq, expressing support for the Palestinian struggle, or supporting opposition groups in Saudi Arabia and a host of other regimes allied to Britain could be criminalised. No direct action is required to fall under the sway of these measures. No evidence is ruled out as too flimsy. The Orwellian concept of "thought crime" is to be made the basis of British law. > > "Let no one be in any doubt. The rules of the game are changing," Blair said. > > This statement epitomises the prime minister's utter contempt for democratic rights. Constitutional safeguards protecting civil liberties established over hundreds of years are to be swept aside. A British citizen no longer has any inalienable right to freedom of speech or worship, or protection from arbitrary arrest. All power will now rest with the government. > > Even the independence enjoyed by the judiciary, once considered essential to the long-term stability of capitalist rule, is to be challenged. Following the press conference, former Home Secretary David Blunkett warned that the government would not tolerate any judicial attempt to overturn the new anti-terrorist measures. He insisted that the government, and not the courts, were answerable for national security and that "upholding liberty is not a suicide pact." > > Once again, as with 9/11 in the United States, we are told that because of the London bombings of July 7, "everything has changed." After an admittedly horrible crime, in which 56 people died, it has supposedly become impossible to preserve democratic and constitutional norms that survived two world wars, the threat of Nazi invasion and a terrorist campaign by the IRA that lasted more than three decades. > > This does not withstand scrutiny. By the government's own admission, the influence of the Islamic fundamentalist groups is minimal and the terrorist outrage of July 7, and the subsequent failed bombings of July 21, were carried out by individuals who were not members of a sophisticated terrorist outfit, but were animated by political and religious conviction. > > Moreover, the government has already granted itself massive powers to clamp down on Islamic fundamentalists, the activities of which, as a number of media reports have made clear, are well known to the security services. > > More fundamentally, it is government policy that is responsible for the increased terror threat. It is Britain's participation in the invasion of Afghanistan and the illegal war against Iraq that has inflamed the anger of young Muslims and provided a seedbed in which the reactionary influence of the Islamic fundamentalists can germinate. > > Although dressing up its repressive measures as a necessary defence of Britain's "tolerant" society, Blair can provide no democratic channel through which such political disaffection can find expression. > > This is not an issue confined to British Muslims. Blair's government rules on behalf of a narrow financial oligarchy, which has accrued its vast wealth through the exploitation of the world's resources and peoples. That is why the government can tolerate no opposition to its predatory policies in the Middle East from any quarter. > > Matters cannot end there. The government's foreign policy is directly related to its domestic political agenda. Under Blair's Labour government, social inequality has widened to unprecedented levels, as welfare and public services have been gutted and wage levels slashed in order to generate super-profits and tax breaks for the major transnational corporations. This agenda has proven to be incompatible with the preservation of democratic norms. > > Blair heads a government that has little popular support and is fully aware of the hostility it has engendered both internationally and within Britain. Yet he cannot contemplate the type of reformist measures previously used to secure a measure of political consensus, and so must rely on police methods. > > The announcement of these latest proposals follows the state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London subway carriage on July 22. Following the gunning down of this innocent man, the police confirmed that they now operate under shoot-to-kill policies first implemented in Northern Ireland. Since then, every day has brought fresh revelations that the techniques perfected during "the Troubles" are now to be used to police mainland Britain. > > At the height of its power, British imperialism carried out its most brutal crimes overseas in order to maintain its rule over the colonial masses, but was able to use the fruits of empire to secure a degree of social peace at home. The decline of British imperialism and the crisis facing capitalism on a world scale mean that this political distinction must now be expunged. The ruling elite must resort to force of arms to enforce its wishes in London, just as surely as it does in Baghdad. > > This accounts for the extraordinary political consensus of the opposition parties behind the government's measures. Blair told the press that since July 7, "To be fair, the Conservative leadership has responded with a genuine desire to work together for the good of the country, as have the Liberal Democrats." > > Neither party has disappointed Blair. Conservative leader Michael Howard said his party has been calling for the measures for years, adding, "It is important a united front is maintained in the face of the terror threat." > > Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said that Blair's announcement "put the cross-party consensus under serious strain," but promised only that his party would "reserve our position until we have consulted properly ourselves." > > Most of the media has also been supportive, with the Telegraph expressing its hope that Blair was "firing the first shots in an arguably overdue battle for supremacy between the legislative and judicial branches of governmentwith implications that go well beyond counter-terrorism or immigration policy." > > Equally significant is the feeble character of the protests Blair's announcement has evoked from the liberal press and civil rights groups, which focus on concerns that the Blair government's authoritarianism will endanger national unity and political consensus. > > In a society riven by class antagonisms, such appeals to national unity only hand the initiative to the government. The defence of democratic rights demands a struggle against the capitalist ruling elite that launched war on Iraq in order to seize control of its oil resources, and that now seek to eliminate all possibility of opposing their criminal actions. > > All of those who oppose militarism and war must renew and reinvigorate a political campaign of protests and demonstrations, linking the demand for an end to the occupation of Iraq with the fight to preserve civil liberties. Such a movement must demand that Blair and all those responsible for authoring the war be held legally and politically accountable for its consequences, including the July 7 terror attack and the draconian measures enacted in its wake. > > To end the threat of terrorism, it is necessary to end the imperialist policies that have created the conditions for the growth of terrorist movements among the most impoverished and oppressed populations in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere. British capitalism has long supported semi-feudal despotisms, such as the Saudi sheikdom, in order to secure its access to oil and its other strategic interests, while defending the brutal suppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli state. Its illegal invasion and subjugation of Iraq represents the outcome of this imperialist policy. > > To end the predatory policies of British imperialism, it is above all necessary to establish the political independence of the working class by building a mass socialist movement that fights for the international unity of the working class. > > See Also: > Forces trained in Britain's dirty war in Northern Ireland involved in de Menezes killing > [8 August 2005] > London bombings trigger massive assault on democratic rights > [4 August 2005] > Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of Blair's war policy > [25 July 2005] > > > > --------------------------------- > > Freedom America NOW E-List - News and Views >From New Babylon > The beast is loose in Bethlehem and the rats are in the corn. > Look up... for your redemption draweth nigh! > ++++++Jesus Christ is the Answer, Check it out.++++++ > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050810-121648-7739r.htm > U.S. agent accused of aiding illegals > A U.S. Border Patrol agent accused of being an illegal alien and smuggling other illegals into the United States faces a bail hearing today in federal court in San Diego. > Oscar Antonio Ortiz, 28, a Mexican citizen born in Tijuana, is charged with using a fraudulent birth certificate to obtain a job with the agency in 2001 and alien smuggling. The numbered certificate claimed he was born in Chicago, although authorities have since discovered it belonged to a man born a month earlier. > Mr. Ortiz, who was assigned at the agency's El Cajon field station 35 miles east of San Diego, pleaded not guilty to the felony charges during a hearing Friday. He was ordered held until today's bail review before U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. > Law-enforcement authorities said Mr. Ortiz and another unidentified Border Patrol agent became the targets of an undercover investigation after they were overheard on intercepted telephone conversations discussing on "many occasions" the smuggling of migrants into the United States through a border area near Tecate, which they patrolled. > Transcripts from the intercepted calls show the unidentified agent told a family member in May that he and Mr. Ortiz smuggled several dozen people into the country and had been paid fees ranging from $300 to $2,000 a person. > The intercepted calls, authorities said, came during an investigation by the North County Regional Gang Task Force in San Diego into a suspected drug ring. > Mr. Ortiz was arrested Thursday in Escondido, Calif., by agents from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General and placed on administrative leave. > Assisting in the arrest were Escondido police, the North County gang unit and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. > "Any agent who defies the Border Patrol's motto of 'Honor First' and chooses to violate the trust of the citizens they swore to protect will be held accountable," Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar in Washington said. "There is no place in the Border Patrol for behavior that tarnishes and discredits the badge we proudly wear." > Mr. Ortiz's attorney, Stephen White, was not available yesterday for comment. If convicted, Mr. Ortiz could face up to 13 years in prison. > Border Patrol officials declined to discuss the case, although Assistant U.S. Attorney Alana Wong in San Diego told Judge Battaglia during Friday's hearing that Mr. Ortiz has resigned from the agency. Prosecutors argued that Mr. Ortiz should remain in jail until his case is decided. > Federal prosecutors have not identified the second agent or said whether that agent also faces charges. Authorities said the second agent also had been placed on administrative leave. > T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 11,000 nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents, called the arrest "embarrassing," but described Mr. Ortiz and the unidentified second agent as "rogue agents." > "The overwhelming majority of the agents are out there risking their lives, enforcing immigration laws, doing a daunting and largely thankless task," said Mr. Bonner, a 28-year veteran of the agency. > Mr. Bonner said the FBI used to conduct background investigations on all Border Patrol applicants, but the job has since been turned over to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Currently, he said, some background checks are not being completed until the agents have been in the field for months. > "It's a two-minute phone call to verify whether the number (on the birth certificate) matches the name," Mr. Bonner said. "Any rookie who is trained in immigration law could have figured that out." > OPM officials in Washington referred inquiries on the background checks to a voice mailbox that was full. A second call was referred to an OPM office in Pennsylvania, where a spokeswoman directed further inquiries to the same voice mailbox. > > > ___________________________________________________________ > "On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, > on the dawn of victory, stopped to rest and resting died." > ...Omar Kayam > "Is a young man bound to serve his country in war? If it is the duty > of a young man to serve his country under all circumstances then > it is equally the duty of an enemy young man to serve his. Thus > we come to a moral contradiction and absurdity so obvious that > even clergymen and editorial writers sometimes notice it." > ...H.L. Mencken > > "How fortunate for governments that people do not think." > ...Adolf Hitler > > MOLON LABE! > > > > --------------------------------- > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 8:19 AM > Subject: WEll, another story NOT covered by the NY Times > > > Please call the Senate and speak to your senator and ask him to support getting this bill out of committee. It revamps parts of the FDA to make the evaluation section independant of the influence of the Drug Co. Believe it or not Drug companies are the 4th leading cause of death in the US which I believe is worse than the record for "illegal drugs". How ironic! P > > http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/2005/aug/13/fda_david_graham.htm > This information is provided by Mercola.com, the world's most visited and trusted natural health website. You can keep current on all the exciting new natural health news by subscribing to the free weekly health newsletter at Mercola.com. Secrets of the FDA Revealed by Top Insider Doctor > > According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "Adverse drug reactions are the fourth leading cause of death in America. Reactions to prescription and over-the-counter medications kill far more people annually than all illegal drug use combined." > > Annually, drug companies spend billions on TV commercials and print media. They spend over $12 billion a year handing out drug samples and employing sales forces to influence doctors to promote specifically branded drugs. The drug industry employs over 1,200 lobbyists, including 40 former members of Congress. Drug companies have spent close to a billion dollars since 1998 on lobbying. In 2004, drug companies and their officials contributed at least $17 million to federal election campaigns. > > To get a full diagnosis of this provocative story, highly acclaimed health guru Gary Null sent his lead investigator and director of operations, Manette Loudon, to Washington, D.C. to interview Food and Drug Administration (FDA) employee and Vioxx whistleblower Dr. David Graham. What you are about to read may leave you questioning the safety of all drugs, but it is a story that must be told. Unless Congress steps up to the plate and changes policy at the FDA, millions more will become unwitting victims of adverse drug reactions from unsafe drugs. > > Loudon: Dr. Graham, it's truly a pleasure to have the opportunity to interview you. Let me begin by asking you how long you've been with the FDA and what your current position is? > > Dr. David Graham: I've been with the FDA for 20 years. I'm currently the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the Office of Drug Safety. That's my official job. But when I'm here today I'm speaking in my private capacity on my own time, and I do not represent the FDA. > > We can be pretty certain that the FDA would not agree with most of what I have to say. So with those disclaimers, you know everything is OK. > > Loudon: On November 23, 2004 (during the) PBS Online News Hour Program, you were quoted as making the following statement: "I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. Simply put, FDA and the Center for Drug Evaluation Research (CDER) are broken." Since you've made that statement, has anything changed within the FDA to fix what's broken and, if not, how serious is the problem that we're dealing with here? > > Dr. Graham: Since November, when I appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and announced to the world that the FDA was incapable of protecting America from unsafe drugs or from another Vioxx, very little has changed on the surface and substantively nothing has changed. > > The structural problems that exist within the FDA, where the people who approve the drugs are also the ones who oversee the post marketing regulation of the drug, remain unchanged. The people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it because it will reflect badly on them. They continue to let the damage occur. America is just as at risk now as it was in November, as it was two years ago, and as it was five years ago. > > Loudon: In that same PBS program, you were also quoted saying, "The organizational structure within the CDER is currently geared towards the review and approval of new drugs. When a serious safety issue arises at post marketing, the immediate reaction is almost always one of denial, rejection and heat. They approved the drugs, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with it. This is an inherent conflict of interest." > > Based on what you're saying it appears that the FDA is responsible for protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies and not the American people. Do you believe the FDA can protect the public from dangerous drugs? > > Dr. Graham: As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured. > > Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about 5 percent. The "gorilla in the living room" is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug. So you have that conflict as well. > > Loudon: When did that go into effect? > > Dr. Graham: The Prescription Drug User Fee Act came into play in 1992. It was passed by Congress as a way of providing the FDA with more funds so that it could hire more physicians and other scientists to review drug applications so that drugs would be approved more quickly. > > For industry, every day a drug is held up from being marketed, represents a loss of 1 million to 2 million dollars of profit. The incentive is to review and approve the drugs as quickly as possible, and not stand in the way of profit-making. The FDA cooperates with that mandate. > > Loudon: And what about those new drugs? Are they any better than what already exists on the market? > > Dr. Graham: It's a myth that is promulgated not only by industry but also by the FDA itself. It's a misperception that our lawmakers in Congress have as well and they've been fed this line by industry. > > Industry is saying there are all these lifesaving drugs that the FDA is slow to approve and people are dying in the streets because of it. The fact is that probably about two-thirds to three-quarters of the drugs that the FDA reviews are already on the market and are being reviewed for another indication. > > So, for example, if I've got a drug that can treat bronchitis and now it's going to be used to treat a urinary tract infection, well, that's a new indication. But it's the same drug and we already know about the safety of the drug. There is nothing life-saving there. There is nothing new. There is nothing innovative. > > A very small proportion of drugs represent a new drug that hasn't been marketed before. Most of those drugs are no better than the ones that exist. If you want to talk about breakthrough drugs -- the ones that really make a difference in patients' lives and represent a revolution in pharmacology -- we're talking about maybe one or two drugs a year. Most of them aren't breakthroughs and most of them aren't life-saving, but they get treated as if they were. > > Loudon: Are you at liberty to discuss some of the problems your colleagues are finding with other drugs and if so, how widespread is the problem? > > Dr. Graham: I'm really not at liberty to talk about things that pertain to my official duties at the FDA. I can talk in my private capacity, but I can't talk about material that would be confidential. > > What I can say is that there are a number of other scientists within the FDA who have also worked with drugs that they know are not safe, even though the FDA has approved or allowed them to remain on the market. They face some of the same difficulties that I do. The difference is that either the problem isn't as serious in terms of the numbers of people that were injured or that it's a fatal reaction -- they're not willing to expose themselves to retaliation by the FDA -- and retaliation would surely follow. > > Loudon would like to thank Manette Loudon and Pam Klebs for their help in putting this interview with Dr. David Graham together. > > Loudon is a hard-hitting, in-depth health publication that cuts through the health lies that are so prevalent in our world today. Loudon is published every two months. To obtain a free sample or to subscribe to this one-of-a-kind publication, visit their Web site. > > > > Dr. Mercola's Comment: > > Dr. David Graham has also helped write new legislation called the Grassley Dodd Bill that is currently held up in committee. It is a radical bill that should help transform the FDA back to its roots and really protect the public safety. It would set up a new independent Center inside the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review drugs and biological products once they are on the market. > > The bill addresses the fact that office of new drugs carries too much sway over the FDA's drug-safety apparatus. Today drug makers have the ability to negotiate with the FDA officials who approved their drugs to begin with when the FDA considers corrective action By creating a Center for post-market review, this legislation puts you, the American consumers where you belong at the FDA, and that's front and center. > > I don't ask you to write your congressman frequently, but this one is worth it. You can help save some lives by helping to increase pressure to change the way the FDA is run. The drug companies do NOT want this bill passed and they have the largest lobby in Congress so we really need all the help we can, > > You can find out how to contact your Congressman by going to the following URL: > > http://www.house.gov/writerep/ > > All you need to do is write a simple short note telling them how you feel the FDA is critically broken and you believe that the new proposed legislation would really help improve that. > > If you want to review the entire bill I put it up on my site. > > Related Articles: > > The FDA "Foxes" Keep Guarding the Drug Safety "Henhouse" > > Testimony of David J. Graham, MD, MPH > > Vioxx Reapproved by FDA Panel Members With Ties to Drug Companies > > Whistle Blower is My New Hero > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050809-1701-venezuela-us.html > > Chavez says Venezuela would defeat U.S. invasion > 5:01 p.m. August 9, 2005 > > > CARACAS, Venezuela Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lashed out at one of his favorite targets, declaring that if U.S. forces were to invade the South American country they would be soundly defeated. > Chavez has repeatedly leveled such accusations despite strong American denials that it is considering military action against Venezuela, one of its key oil suppliers and a close ally of Cuba. > But Chavez again took aim late Monday, telling a students from across the globe that the U.S. should be aware of the consequences of such an action. > "If someday they get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we'll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land," Chavez said to applause. > He spoke during the opening ceremony of a world youth festival bringing together 15,000 students from dozens of countries, convening under the slogan "Against Imperialism and War," officials said. > The World Festival of Students and Youth has been held intermittently for more than 50 years. Most host countries were aligned with the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, including Romania, Poland and the former East Germany. > More than 300 students from the United States shouted out their disapproval of President Bush, chanting "Get out Bush!" > The Venezuelan leader said "socialism is the only path," and told the students the collective goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism." > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Freedom America NOW E-List - News and Views >From New Babylon > The beast is loose in Bethlehem and the rats are in the corn. > Look up... for your redemption draweth nigh! > ++++++Jesus Christ is the Answer, Check it out.++++++ > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050810-121648-7739r.htm > U.S. agent accused of aiding illegals > A U.S. Border Patrol agent accused of being an illegal alien and smuggling other illegals into the United States faces a bail hearing today in federal court in San Diego. > Oscar Antonio Ortiz, 28, a Mexican citizen born in Tijuana, is charged with using a fraudulent birth certificate to obtain a job with the agency in 2001 and alien smuggling. The numbered certificate claimed he was born in Chicago, although authorities have since discovered it belonged to a man born a month earlier. > Mr. Ortiz, who was assigned at the agency's El Cajon field station 35 miles east of San Diego, pleaded not guilty to the felony charges during a hearing Friday. He was ordered held until today's bail review before U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. > Law-enforcement authorities said Mr. Ortiz and another unidentified Border Patrol agent became the targets of an undercover investigation after they were overheard on intercepted telephone conversations discussing on "many occasions" the smuggling of migrants into the United States through a border area near Tecate, which they patrolled. > Transcripts from the intercepted calls show the unidentified agent told a family member in May that he and Mr. Ortiz smuggled several dozen people into the country and had been paid fees ranging from $300 to $2,000 a person. > The intercepted calls, authorities said, came during an investigation by the North County Regional Gang Task Force in San Diego into a suspected drug ring. > Mr. Ortiz was arrested Thursday in Escondido, Calif., by agents from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General and placed on administrative leave. > Assisting in the arrest were Escondido police, the North County gang unit and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. > "Any agent who defies the Border Patrol's motto of 'Honor First' and chooses to violate the trust of the citizens they swore to protect will be held accountable," Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar in Washington said. "There is no place in the Border Patrol for behavior that tarnishes and discredits the badge we proudly wear." > Mr. Ortiz's attorney, Stephen White, was not available yesterday for comment. If convicted, Mr. Ortiz could face up to 13 years in prison. > Border Patrol officials declined to discuss the case, although Assistant U.S. Attorney Alana Wong in San Diego told Judge Battaglia during Friday's hearing that Mr. Ortiz has resigned from the agency. Prosecutors argued that Mr. Ortiz should remain in jail until his case is decided. > Federal prosecutors have not identified the second agent or said whether that agent also faces charges. Authorities said the second agent also had been placed on administrative leave. > T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 11,000 nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents, called the arrest "embarrassing," but described Mr. Ortiz and the unidentified second agent as "rogue agents." > "The overwhelming majority of the agents are out there risking their lives, enforcing immigration laws, doing a daunting and largely thankless task," said Mr. Bonner, a 28-year veteran of the agency. > Mr. Bonner said the FBI used to conduct background investigations on all Border Patrol applicants, but the job has since been turned over to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Currently, he said, some background checks are not being completed until the agents have been in the field for months. > "It's a two-minute phone call to verify whether the number (on the birth certificate) matches the name," Mr. Bonner said. "Any rookie who is trained in immigration law could have figured that out." > OPM officials in Washington referred inquiries on the background checks to a voice mailbox that was full. A second call was referred to an OPM office in Pennsylvania, where a spokeswoman directed further inquiries to the same voice mailbox. > > > ___________________________________________________________ > "On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, > on the dawn of victory, stopped to rest and resting died." > ...Omar Kayam > "Is a young man bound to serve his country in war? If it is the duty > of a young man to serve his country under all circumstances then > it is equally the duty of an enemy young man to serve his. Thus > we come to a moral contradiction and absurdity so obvious that > even clergymen and editorial writers sometimes notice it." > ...H.L. Mencken > > "How fortunate for governments that people do not think." > ...Adolf Hitler > > MOLON LABE! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hu7arl9/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705060682:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123975537/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992 ">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!</a>.</font> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
