Thank you for your Freudian analysis of a courageous lady who has the courage to speak truth to power.
Dave Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:26 AM Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Cindy Sheehan - My Son Died For Israel, Not America [ Moderator: Being opposed to US GOVT tax paid for support of the STATE of Israel (or ANY other nation) is not only NOT 'anti-semetic' it's also the LIBERTARIAN position. -TLP ] she's wrong on all counts. Any credibility she might have had has just been destroyed by her subtle anti-semitic remark. She's truly a pathetic figure. Heard an interesting theory this morning on a radio talk show. A caller suggested that she's really pissed at her dead son more than Bush or anyone else. Apparently she has a long history of being a Peacenick. Then her son ups and joins the Army. What a direct insult to her. She's probably taking out her anger at her own son on Bush and the rest of us. --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 whatsoever-including 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 leader-to 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 government-with 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] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h123lo8/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705060682:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124128780/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/
