ETERNAL VIGILANCE

Change in license law irks some Vt. officials

Suspended drivers find penalty eased

By Associated Press, 7/28/2003

BRATTLEBORO -- Some law enforcement officials are unhappy with a change in Vermont law that decriminalizes driving without a license.


The new law, which went into effect on July 1, stipulates that driving with a suspended license is only a civil offense, which can't be prosecuted in criminal court.

Exceptions include licenses suspended for criminal reasons, such as drunken driving or gross negligent operation.

''I'm not happy with it,'' said Windham County Sheriff Sheila Prue. ''It ties our hands with these people.''

''We're certainly not pleased with that kind of process,'' added Vermont State Police Lieutenant Jocelyn Stohl. ''I think, quite frankly, it gives us more work.''

Before the change, a person would be prosecuted in criminal court after being caught driving with a suspended license for the third time, said Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis.

Such a charge included a maximum penalty of two years in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both.

Under the new law, however, a driver pulled over for a civil suspension, such as failure to pay fines, can only be ticketed again.

''They can drive with a suspended license indefinitely,'' said Davis. ''We won't be prosecuting them. They'll handle them in traffic court.''

The change was tacked on to a House measure while in committee.

The bill increased penalties for drug crimes. It also revised fines and community service sentences for convictions.

Davis's office handles about 2,000 cases a year, and incidents of people driving with a suspended license are a substantial portion.

''We did several hundred of these a year,'' said Davis. ''Most of the cases settle out at arraignment with a fine.''

As a result of the modification, Davis was forced to dismiss a number of cases, he said.

This story ran on page B2 of the Boston Globe on 7/28/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Editor's comment: Notice that women hold two chief law enforcement positions in Vermont, as in Isaiah 3:12, and they are really bitching about losing their usurped power! It appears sleeping Israel America is awakening, at least somewhat!

In America, the people are individually sovereign. The humans we allow to run the corporate government are our public servants, and can never be our masters. It is each citizen's right, duty & responsibility to see to it that our public servants do not usurp the strictly limited political power we have given them.

The people DO NOT possess any power to delegate to their representatives, to arbitrarily and capriciously compel ALL CITIZENS to first obtain a license prior to our using our PRIVATE PROPERTY (automobiles), on OUR OWN PUBLIC ROADS WE OWN, and therefore, cannot, and have not done so! Over the years, the usurpation has taken place through the public's general habit of blind obedience, based upon nothing but their vague and imprecise notions, and not the law! Now the political usurpers, like these police officials above, their prosecutor cohorts, and all other government prosecutor members of the private B.A.R. Associations, want to perpetuate the slavery and constructive fraud because it has become a very lucrative protection racket of legalized plunder & extortion for filthy lucre! It is also an integral, self-funding part of the communist manifesto, through which everyone is monitored, controlled & regulated.

In Missouri, the "motor vehicle drivers' license tax" is imposed under Article X, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, & Section 136.030, RSMo. This tax is imposed against ONLY "persons" who are "owners," "operators," or "drivers" of "motor vehicles." The Missouri State Legislature DID NOT create the "operator's" or "driver's license," & therefore it does not lawfully exist. It is merely a receipt, created by the Missouri Department of Revenue, showing evidence the aforesaid TAX was paid. The license provides no more safety than a good luck token in your pocket!

Space does not permit me to provide legal definitions of terms, but briefly, the TAX is imposed against ONLY a specific class of enumerated "persons" engaged in a specific class of enumerated privileged, occupational, business or commercial driving activities, in use of a specific class of things (vehicles), exclusively for profit or gain upon the public roadways, which roadways are owned by the people of Missouri, who comprise the State of Missouri, not to be confused with the peoples' renegade corporate government, styled as the "STATE OF MISSOURI."

The act of using an automobile on the public roads, is not a criminally prohibited act, as is murder, rape, or robbery; it is a civilly regulated act under TITLE XIX, Chapters 300-307, RSMo.. However, the corporate state government, through usurpers of the peoples' inherently held political power, are taking this civil matter, and using criminal process to invoke it against the people. When a government uses criminal process to impose a civil regulation against the people, it amounts to involuntary servitude or slavery, which is prohibited by the Laws of the Creator and the 13th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Strategy: Perception vs. Deception Jul 21, 2003


SUMMARY

The Bush administration's continued unwillingness to enunciate a coherent picture of the strategy behind the war against al Qaeda -- which explains the war in Iraq -- could produce a dangerous domino effect. Lurking in the shadows is the not fully articulated perception that the Iraq war not only began in deception but that planning for the Iraq war was incompetent -- a perception driven by the realization that the United States is engaged in a long-term occupation and guerrilla war in Iraq, and the belief that the United States neither expected nor was prepared for this. Ultimately, this perception could erode Bush's support base, cost him the presidency and, most seriously, lead to defeat in the war against al Qaeda.

ANALYSIS

We keep waiting for the moment when Iraq does not constitute the major global event of the week. We clearly are not there yet. In Iraq, the reality is fairly stable. The major offensive by the guerrillas forecast by both U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and what seemed to be a spokesman for al Qaeda last weekend did not materialize. The guerrillas tried to shoot down a C-130 coming into Baghdad International Airport, and that was a significant escalation, but they missed -- and it was only a single act. Casualties continue to mount, but with the dead averaging at just more than 10 per week, it has not come close to reaching a decisive level.

The deterioration of support in Washington and London is not yet decisive. Support for U.S. President George W. Bush sank from a percentage in the high 70s in the wake of the war, to just more than 50 percent in the past 10 days. But as we read the successive polls, the slump that hit when the WMD issue came to the fore -- along with the realization that the United States was dealing with a guerrilla movement -- has not accelerated. It slumped and held. Meanwhile, London headlines have focused on the apparent suicide of weapons expert David Kelly, the probable source for a BBC story about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's manipulation of intelligence data. It is unclear whether these reports have had an impact on public opinion.

However, the current issue is not public opinion. Lurking behind this issue is the not fully articulated perception that the Iraq war not only began in deception but that planning for the Iraq war was incompetent -- a perception driven by the realization that the United States is engaged in a long-term occupation and guerrilla war in Iraq, and the belief that the United States in particular was neither expecting nor prepared for this.

A cartoon republished in the New York Times News of the Week section by Mike Smith of the Las Vegas Sun sums up this perception. A general, holding a paper titled "Guerrilla War In Iraq," says to a table full of generals, "We need to switch to Plan B." Another general responds, "There was a Plan A?" The media loves the trivial and can't grasp the significant. If the United States fabricated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as critics are claiming, the question is not whether it did so. The question is: Why did it do so? In other words, why was invading Iraq important enough to lie about -- if indeed it was a lie, which is far from clear. The emerging perception is that there was no Plan A and there is no Plan B -- that the decision to invade was arbitrary and that the lying was therefore gratuitous.

In other words, the Bush administration has a four-part public relations problem:

1. The perception that it lied about weapons of mass destruction 2. The perception that it had no strategic reason for invading Iraq 3. The perception that it was unprepared for the guerrilla war 4. The perception that it is at a loss for what to do next

As we argued last week, lying in foreign policy does not bother the American public. From Woodrow Wilson's "too proud to fight" slogan in the 1916 presidential campaign, to Franklin D. Roosevelt's war planning with the British while publicly denying such plans, to John F. Kennedy claiming that the United States had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs, what bothers the American public is the idea that the lying is not designed to hide the strategy, but to hide the fact that there is no strategy.

The media are clever. The public is smart. The media have the ability to generate intellectual mayhem within Washington. What should be troubling for Bush is that, as we review the local papers this past weekend, the deepest concern creeping into letters to the editor is that there is no underlying strategy, no point to it -- and no exit. Bush clearly retains a massive support base that is not, as we have said, continuing to erode. The media's fixation on "what did he know and when did he know it" will not erode it by itself, but the administration's continued unwillingness to reveal a strategy behind the war on al Qaeda likely will.

The core problem the United States has had in enunciating a strategy rests on this: Since Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda has not carried out a strategic operation. It has carried out a series of tactical operations -- Bali, Mombassa, Riyadh, Casablanca and so on -- but it has not struck again at the United States in an operation of the magnitude of Sept. 11. The operations outside the United States are not, by themselves, sufficient to justify the global war the United States is waging. Preventing another Sept. 11 is worth the effort. However, as time passes, the perception -- if not the reality -- grows that Sept. 11 was al Qaeda's best and only shot at the United States. If that is true, then the level of effort we have seen on a global basis -- including the invasion of Iraq and certainly the continued occupation of Iraq in the face of insurrection -- simply isn't worth it. Or put differently, the United States is fighting an illusion and exhausting resources in the process.

The mere assertion of the threat will work if Bush and his advisers have a pristine record of honesty with the public. At the point where the public has reason to doubt the word of the president on anything concerning the war, it will affect his ability to be authoritative on anything concerning the war. Moreover, the president's basis for information on al Qaeda's intentions and capabilities rests with confidence in the quality of intelligence he is getting. The current crisis over who failed to identify the forgery is trivial. However, it melds into two other serious intelligence crises. First, did the intelligence community fail in its analysis of Iraqi WMD? Second, and more serious in our view, did the intelligence community fail to understand former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's war plan and, therefore, fail to understand that the fall of Baghdad was not the end of the war but the beginning of the guerrilla phase?

Reasonable arguments can be made to justify each of these failures. However, at the end of the day, if the CIA did not know about the forgery, did not understand the WMD situation in Iraq and did not anticipate the guerrilla war, then why should the public believe it regarding the on-going threat of al Qaeda? Pushing the argument further, if the intelligence community did in fact know about each of these things and the president chose to ignore them, then why should the public believe Bush when he talks about al Qaeda?

Bush cannot afford a crisis in the intelligence community or in the public perception of his use of intelligence. More than any of the other world wars in which the United States has participated, this is an intelligence war. Al Qaeda does not have a geographical locus. It does not have a clean organizational chart. It is as much an idea as an organization. Everything that followed Sept. 11 has depended on the public's confidence in its intelligence community. If that confidence is destroyed, then everything else said about al Qaeda -- including that it is an ongoing threat that justifies a global war -- becomes subject to debate.

If the CIA cannot be trusted, then the president can't be trusted. If the president can't be trusted, then the urgency of the war cannot be trusted. If the urgency of the war can't be trusted, then the massive exertion being demanded of the U.S. military and public cannot be justified. Thus, having CIA Director George Tenet fall on his sword and accept responsibility for the 16 words in the President's speech might make a lot of sense inside the beltway, but it is an act of breathtaking recklessness in the rest of the country. Even if he were responsible -- which we regard as pretty dubious -- the White House does not seem to understand that destroying the credibility of the CIA is the same thing as destroying the war effort. The entire war effort is based on the public's trust of the CIA's portrayal of the ongoing threat from al Qaeda. If the CIA isn't to be trusted, why should anyone believe that al Qaeda is a threat?

This self-destructive behavior by the Bush administration is not at all confined to undermining the credibility of the CIA. Rumsfeld's incomprehensible behavior regarding the guerrilla war in Iraq was another axis of self-destruction. Back in May, any reasonable observer of the situation in Iraq -- including Stratfor -- saw that there was an organized guerrilla war under way. However, Rumsfeld, as late as June 30, not only continued to deny the obvious, but actually hurled contempt at anyone who said it was a guerrilla war. Rumsfeld's obstinate refusal to acknowledge what was obvious to everyone was the sort of behavior designed to undermine confidence in U.S. strategy by both the public and the troops in the field. Rumsfeld kept arguing that this was not Vietnam, which was certainly true, except in the sense that Rumsfeld was behaving like Robert McNamara. As in Vietnam -- and this is the only comparison there is between it and Iraq -- the behavior of the leadership made even supporters of the war and the troops in the field feel that there was no strategy.

Napoleon once said, "In battle, the morale is to the material as 2 is to 1." Maintaining the morale of one's forces depends on maintaining confidence in the military and political commanders. When forces are killing U.S. troops -- forces that the defense secretary dismisses -- the only conclusion the troops can draw is that either they are not very good soldiers, since they can't stop them, or that the defense secretary has taken leave of his senses. Either way, it undermines morale, increasing the need for the material. It is militarily inefficient to tell self-evident lies to troops.

Similarly, the United States is fighting a war against a barely visible force that cannot be seen by the naked eye, but only by the esoteric tools of the intelligence community. Making the head of that community appear to be a liar or a fool might make good sense in Washington, but it undermines trust in the one institution in which trust is essential if the war is to be prosecuted. It is not casualties that undermine public morale. It is the reasonable belief that if the CIA is incompetent, then neither the justification for the war nor the strategy driving the war can be trusted.

Bush has created a crisis. It is far from a fatal crisis, but it is a crisis that requires a radical readjustment in approach. The public explanation of the war and the reality of the war must come into alignment. Stratfor has extensively chronicled the underlying strategy of the war, and we will not repeat it here. That strategy has never been enunciated publicly. The connection between the war against al Qaeda, the Iraq campaign and future actions throughout the world never has been laid out in a conceptual framework. This is a complex war. It does not reduce itself to the simple dictum of Desert Storm enunciated by Secretary of State Colin Powell: First we will cut off the enemy, then we will surround the enemy, then we will kill the enemy. That was a good line and truly reflected the solution.

This war does not reduce to one-liners. However, there is a threat and there is a strategy. WMD make wonderful one-liners and they are not altogether irrelevant. But that is not what the war against Iraq was about, it is not the reason for fighting a guerrilla war and it is certainly only part of the broader war. The most dangerous thing Bush can do from his standpoint is to continue to play a bad hand rather than endure the pain of having to throw it in and reshuffle the deck. However, it will be easier to explain the real force driving U.S. strategy than to allow his presidency to degenerate into an argument of who forged a letter and whether he knew it.

The basic strategy behind a war always has been publicly discussed. In World War II, after Dec. 7 and the German declaration of war, the basic outlines of the war plan were widely discussed in the media -- in spite of censorship. Everyone knew the Germany First strategy, the goal of landing in France at some point, the purpose of the bombing campaign, the nature of island hopping. No one expected to know the landing site in France or the next island to be invaded in the Pacific, but everyone understood the core strategy.

This is a much more complex war. That increases -- not decreases -- the need for strategic clarity among the public and the troops. The United States is not randomly in Iraq, and it is not there because Hussein was a butcher or because he might have had WMD. Those are good reasons, but not the real reason. The United States is in Iraq to force Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran to change their behavior toward al Qaeda and other Islamist groups. The United States already has overwhelmed the Saudis and is engaged in threatening Syria and Iran. This is visible to everyone who is watching. That is why the United States is in Iraq. It might or might not be good strategy, but it is a strategy that is much better than no strategy at all.

Admitting this undoubtedly will create a frenzy in the media concerning the change in explanation. But there will be nothing to chew on, and the explanation will be too complex for the media to understand anyway. They will move on to the next juicy murder, leaving foreign policy to the government and the public. We suspect that before this is over, both Tenet and Rumsfeld will have to go, but that matters more to them than to the republic, which will endure their departure with its usual equanimity. Alternatively, Bush will continue to allow the battle to be fought over the question of "what did he know and when did he know it," which is a battle he cannot win. Bush has a strategic decision to make. He must align strategy with public perception or have his presidency ripped apart.

Cheney Was Bush’s Triggerman in Escalating Intelligence Catfight



Vice President Dick Cheney was the true triggerman behind waging the imperialist war on Iraq.



Exclusive To American Free Press

By Gordon Thomas



Vice President Dick Cheney was the trigger which exploded the long-simmering war between the White House and the CIA’s embattled director, George Tenet.

He ordered Tenet last January to insert the now notorious 16 words that there was “credible” British intelligence that Saddam had tried in 2001 to buy uranium ore (yellowcake) from Niger, the impoverished West African nation.

Three months before, in October 2002, Tenet had personally intervened to stop President Bush from making such a claim in a speech asserting that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Tenet told Bush he could not support the claim. When Cheney told him last January about the “credible” British intelligence, Tenet repeated his warning that the CIA could not endorse it. In what one account says was a “tense meeting,” Cheney bluntly overruled Tenet.

The vice president’s action cast a shadow over British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s visit to Washington.

Bush feels Britain’s intelligence services, MI6 and MI5, have not kept the CIA properly informed. Blair insists his spy agencies could not pass on more information on the Niger yellowcake because, according to a London Foreign Office officer, “under the rules governing cooperation they have with foreign intelligence services, our service could not share intelligence from those sources without the originator’s permission.”

This impasse has created a deep anger between the CIA, MI6 and MI5. A British official at its embassy in Washington told AFP that “the CIA has been dumping on everybody and everybody is dumping on the CIA”.

A Bush administration official described Blair’s visit as “fallout time. Not finding WMD was always going to make his visit a time for plain speaking. To echo the president’s liking for a Texan example, this could be shootout time at the White House corral.”

More certain is that the intelligence fallout from the Iraq war is now the most serious rift in transatlantic secret relations since the post-World War II scandal of the British atom spies who stole U.S. nuclear secrets for the Soviet Union.

“We don’t believe for a moment that Tenet just fell on his own sword. What happened has all the hallmarks of Dick Cheney,” said an MI6 source close to the agency’s director-general, Sir Richard Dearlove.

The reverberations have led to calls in London for Blair to resign—and efforts by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to bring closure to the row on the eve of his own departure from the administration.

Clare Short, who resigned from Blair’s cabinet over Britain going to war “on a false pretense,” said Blair “should now resign before matters get nastier for him. Trust in him and Bush is going down by the day.”

How all this happened is one of the most shocking stories to emerge in the post-Iraq war inquest.

ORIGINS OF NIGER SCANDAL

The complex story has simple roots. In November 2001, Italian secret service agents were approached by a West African diplomat. He said he had details of a plot by the Iraqis to buy “hundreds of tons” of uranium ore from Niger. He produced supporting documents.

On the surface, the claim sounded credible. Iraq had already purchased 200 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1986, the Italians told the CIA station in Rome. The station chief sent a detailed report to Langley, including the documents the African diplomat had provided.

The material was sent to the State Department. The U.S. ambassador to Niger at the time, Barbro Owens-Kirk Patrick, was asked to assess all the material.

But while she was doing so, Cheney intervened. He told a senior diplomat, Joseph Wilson—who had first-hand knowledge of Niger—that he wanted him to go there and investigate the claims.

By the time he arrived, Owens-Kirkpatrick had dismissed the documents as “crude forgeries”—and the African diplomat’s claims to the Italians as “pure fantasy.”

Wilson concurred. His own investigation showed that Niger’s security on yellowcake—introduced after Saddam’s previous purchase—was too rigorous for any Iraqi attempt to purchase uranium ore to have gone undetected.

In March 2002, Wilson briefed Tenet. He passed on Wilson’s findings to his British counterpart, Sir Richard Dearlove of MI6. He informed the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, and John Scarlett, the former spy who now chairs Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee. His job is to know anything that can be known about Saddam and his WMD.

On Sept. 24, 2002, Blair published his government’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It included the claim “Iraq has sought the supply of significant amounts of uranium from Africa.”

It did not say when—let alone whether—this had been in the 1980s. Neither was Niger mentioned. But to Wilson it was “obvious this was the same story as in the discredited documents.”

There the matter may have died as far as the White House went if Bush had not wanted to include the details in his October speech of last year.

Having headed him off, Tenet believed the bogus Niger connection was over. But then Cheney made his fateful visit to Langley last January to demand that Tenet should allow the Niger story to form part of Bush’s State of the Union speech.

Tenet, say credible sources, was horrified. He reminded Cheney that both Owens-Kirkpatrick and Wilson had refuted any Niger connection.

Cheney was insistent. He said there was credible evidence from British intelligence. He cited the Blair report. He reminded Tenet of Saddam’s previous acquisition of yellowcake in the 1980s.

Tenet had explained Niger had no capability to enrich uranium ore—the basic prerequisite to producing a nuclear bomb. He added that, after the first gulf war ended, UN inspectors had destroyed Saddam’s essential equipment that could turn the ore into fissionable material.

The CIA was certain that Iraq had not been able to repair the equipment. Tenet also reminded Cheney he had personally intervened to stop Bush including the “Niger story” in his speech three months before, in October 2002.

Cheney, according to one CIA source, “came close to critical mass.”

He told Tenet that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had now received “good intelligence” from London that Saddam had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger in 2001. Therefore that would go into the State of the Union speech—and Tenet must accept the British intelligence.

“The clear implication from Cheney was that the Brits knew more than we did,” said the CIA source.

Bush, traveling back from his African trip, told reporters that Tenet had “cleared” the reference to Niger.

Rice went further: “If the CIA director had said take this out, it would have gone, without question.”

Tenet did say that. Cheney overruled him—once more citing the British “credible sources.” So who were they?

Intelligence sources believe there are two. The French secret service (DGSE) and Mossad.

Both have a strong presence in West Africa.

Niger is a former French colony.

Israel receives a substantial portion of its oil from adjoining Nigeria.

Niger’s uranium mines are run by a French company which is supervised by the French Atomic Energy Commission.

In London, MI6 insists the evidence from these sources remains “credible.”

British intel sources say that “a further factor in the refusal to share its information about Niger with the CIA is concern that the White House would publish it—and lead to our sources being uncovered,” said a London source.

On his trip to London to meet Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was accompanied by Meir Dagan, head of Mossad. He met Sir Richard Dearlove and Eliza Manningham-Buller.

High on their list was the Niger uranium claim. No one still knows if the French-Mossad intelligence is credible.

Did Mossad provide it as part of Israel’s own strategy to ramp-up the war against Iraq?

Did French intelligence refuse to allow the CIA to see its own intelligence because the Paris government was strongly opposed to the coming war with Iraq—and would not wish to provide Washington with any support for military action?

At a recent meeting, Bush confronted Blair with these questions.

But there is little optimism that there will be resolution to a growing crisis which has already blighted the leadership of both men.


To subscribe to American Free Press click Here

Who Wants Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace?

Some 50 years ago an American seer saw the inevitable consequences of global imperialism by the United States and the dangers of futile wars in the name of “democracy.” Lawrence Dennis made an appeal to reason that has even more relevance to the future survival of mankind today than it did then.

---

by Lawrence Dennis

---

The day of profitable exploitation by the white man of Africa and Asia is now over. From here on profitable cooperation only is a rational and practical objective.

The American people were sold two world wars on a general theory that a war to end war and the world rule of law could enforce peace with justice. As we have so often repeated, the craziest phrase or idea of the 20th Century was that of a war to end war.

The big U.S. idea [is that] the world must be unified by force: ours or theirs. This idea is factually and logically all wrong. But is now accepted as a 100 percent American idea. If you want to be a conformist and not a non-conformist, a dissenter or a subversive security risk, you must subscribe to this wrong idea.

We are prepared to join with fellow Americans in the defense of this country against any foreign invasion by foreigners in search of living space.

But we are indisposed to fight or have Americans fight to protect any other area or people from similar wars or attacks. For such wars, our advice is that we should keep out of them, try to keep them localized and limited, try to avert or end them by the use of good offices and negotiation with both sides.

WE want no part of wars to liberate other peoples. Let them liberate themselves. We want no part of wars to defend the status quo in other areas. The dynamics of hate and fear have run the West in two wars.

Whipping up mass hate and fear is the easiest and surest way for a political leader in the western world to come to power and to wield power. It is now the approved way to get a country into a war or to keep it in a state of permanent war as we are in right now.

No political leader in Africa or Asia can have a better asset than to be disliked or denounced by Americans.

The dynamics of hate and fear can, in the long run, only prove fatal for the minority. The white west, or the haves, are the minority.

Permanent Mid-East crisis has great headline news value for policy. How could our power elite in Washington get from $40 billion to $50 billion a year for spending on foreign aid if they did not have war crisis headlines from the Mid-East and other areas in our newspapers most of the time. It is wonderful having a “colored world Hitler” (Saddam, bin Laden, etc. – Ed.) who is nowhere near so powerful and dangerous as was Adolf.

The end result is certain. Time, numbers and space are with the colored world. They are with the Muslim nationalists and against the Israeli nationalists. What the colored world has lacked has been unity and dynamism for war on the whites.

Well, Israel, like America’s big soap operas in the Pacific, is contributing to the unification and activation of the colored world for war against the colonial and other outsiders. The white colonial powers and the Israelis, certainly, can never achieve ultimate and decisive force superiority over the colored world and the vast areas it populates.

The western world, however, if it were guided by operational rationalism and calculation instead of mystical legalism, moralism and traditionalism, could easily formulate and work out propositions or deals with the colored world that are mutually advantageous to both or to all concerned. This is our “constructive” word.

Only a return to neutrality, as counseled in Washington’s Farewell Address, could really insure against our government starting and fighting a third world war against overwhelming numerical odds.

The American people, of course, will not be told that American troops must be sent to the Mid-East to protect the oil stakes. They will be told American intervention in that area is necessary to defend America.

The more natives the American or foreign troops kill, the better for the long run interests of native nationalisms now on the warpath against outsiders.

Hollywood couldn’t have picked a more fitting war stage than Palestine. In this century (20th) we have gone forward to nuclear war and backward to holy war. This is the century of religious wars. For the opening of the third great religious war of one lifetime, no area could be more appropriate than the Holy Land. The staging and casting are superb and logical.

It is the chosen land of the chosen people. It is under the special personal care of God, or rather Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Now Uncle Sam has taken over. Of course, Allah, the God of the Muslims, is in the other camp, that of the Arabs. Yahweh helped the children of Israel take over the Promised Land more than once in the past 4,000 years. But he never stopped their several expulsions and dispersions. This is what Uncle Sam must do in the future.

For reasons which we, like the theologians, are unable to give, Yahweh allowed the Chosen People to be driven out of the Holy Land more than once. But Uncle Sam cannot permit anything like that to happen to the new Israel. Uncle Sam is no defeatist. He does not put up with war, sin or aggression. He fights wars to end war. He is a perfectionist.

The believers in the great religions with a messianic promise used to wait and pray for the coming of the Messiah and the dawn of the Millennium; they must fare forth and fight for it – all over the planet … This is the new internationalism.

God never stopped war or evil in all history as Uncle Sam now must do. We do know that Uncle Sam is committed to not allowing war or aggression to happen without getting in to stop war. He cannot allow the Chosen People to be driven out of Israel as they were, more than once, in the past. How fitting to have World War III start in the Holy Land.

What will be the nature, the extent, the duration and the end results of America’s third war in one lifetime to end war and to stop evil? Well, it is going to be interesting to watch the American casualties pile up in the Mid-East as Uncle Sam tries to stop what Yahweh did not stop in the distant past. And it is going to be even more interesting to follow American mass reactions to the killed and wounded from the Crusade in the Holy Land.

Now that Uncle Sam has taken over and is trying to do a job that Yahweh never did, Uncle Sam can never admit any imputation of sin or evil against one of his allies or protégés. On has to get security clearance. The other has to be branded as subversive. It won’t be long now until Judaism and Mohammedanism will be up for security rating in the permanent war.

There is just one devil – that against Uncle Sam or not with him.

Well, if man’s know-how cannot end war or sin, it can now end the human race. WE now have an infinite potential for annihilation. How long can our idealists hold in check their impulse to do good by pulling the global annihilation trigger?

The new religious war rationalization is to call it law enforcement. Attempts at an unattainable world rule of one law insure permanent religious war, inflation and socialism.

About the only subject of general agreement among the shapers of American opinion and policy today, so far as war and power politics – inter or intra national – are concerned, is that there must be no return to neutralism.

The biggest crime of the 20th Century may turn out to be an eventual extinction of the human race by nuclear radiation (or chemical, biological – Ed.) in a war fought with the weapons which we, peace-loving, good Americans are now having our scientists perfect.

We are developing these weapons to end war, communism and sin on this planet and thereby ushering in the Millennium.

www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/outrage.htm

OUTRAGE IN THE OZARKS
WOMAN PHYSICIAN BEATEN
STOP POLICE BRUTALITY


July 2003

The Lake of the Ozarks, an international tourist area has become the focus of widespread national attention, because of a breaking news story.

As many people prepare for fun-filled vacations at the lake, one woman Ramona Miller, D.O. a Springfield physician and lake area resident, is busy preparing to defend herself in a court of law.

What can only be considered as a contrived prosecution of trumped up traffic violations was filed against her by the same officers who brutally beat her late at night (around 1AM ) on August 28, 2002.

Dr. Ramona Miller feared for her life while driving home from work at St. John's hospital, terrified and terrorized by being tailgated for over 10 miles. She was pulled over in a dark, secluded area in Sunrise Beach between Macks Creek and the Camden county line.

While Dr. Miller was using her cell phone to call for help, it appears that 3 officers became angered and shattered her driver side window into her face.

While she held onto her steering wheel in fear, the officers started beating her, then they dragged her from her truck and beat the 110 lb. woman again. While sitting in jail the abuse continued; she was left in tight hand cuffs for many hours, causing severe nerve damage to her hands.

What's outrageous is that the brutal beating was done at the hands of the Camden County Sheriff's Dept.

It appears officers became incensed and vengeful after Dr. Miller had been called into the Camden County jail to treat an extremely ill
prisoner, who had to be hospitalized for what appeared to be negligence by his jailers in ignoring the ordinary standard of care.

Dr. Miller who is under oath to protect human life, filed a medical report regarding that prisoner which propelled her from an eyewitness of police abuse to a victim of police brutality.

She is currently unable to return to work to perform surgery due to the broken bones and severe injuries she sustained. Dr. Miller has
described her unjustified beatings perpetrated by these 3 officers filed in the Circuit Court of Laclede County, MO, Case No. CR302-1508M.

http://www.gcmsonline.com

Vacationers may think twice about visiting an Ozarks destination; unless those involved in this outrage are held accountable!

The public can help bring this matter to the attention of honorable people in authority who can bring police brutality to an end in Missouri!!!

Signature_______________________________State_______County___________ CONTACT YOUR SENATOR & REPRESENTATIVE

===============

Court Watchers needed at the trial of Dr Ramona Miller
on bogus charges.
-----------------------------
-- The Corrupt Courts Are Your Last Stop
Before The Poor House And Prison
Think About It !
http://www.jail4judges.org
http://www.wbflegalreform.com

18-year-old Rebels Against Being Numbered
Wins Right To Vote Without Social Security Registration

By David M. Bresnahan


LAS VEGAS, NV -- Even though government agencies tried their best to stop him, an 18-year-old will vote for the first time in the Nov. 3 election.

Last July, Joshua Hansen, 18, went to register to vote. A few days later he received a letter in the mail from Kathryn Ferguson, registrar of voters of Clark County, Nevada, rejecting his application.

Hansen had refused to supply a Social Security number on his application and Ferguson rejected him as a voter.

Hansen says he does not have a Social Security number, driver's license, or government issued ID card. He says that he never will. He also refuses to pay income tax.

He defends his stands on these issues based on his study of the U.S. Constitution and his religious beliefs. He says he is willing to pay any price and will not give in to government pressure.

Hansen takes his right to vote seriously. So seriously that he took Ferguson to court to prove his point. With the help of his uncle, attorney Joel F. Hansen, he got the court to order Ferguson to permit him to vote.

He belongs to the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty, which he says is a political religion based on Christianity and the Constitution which people of all denominations may join.

"It's a fellowship of anybody who's Christian who really exercises their Christian beliefs within politics," explained Hansen in a phone interview with WorldNetDaily.

"The Social Security number was much like the mark of the beast talked about in the "Book of Revelations." One of the main reasons is that it, I mean you can't buy or sell without it; it's hard to do a lot of business without it. Have you ever tried to get a job without one, or voting or anything? A lot of the stuff talked about in the prophecy had come to life and I said, 'I don't want one of those.'

"Everything around Social Security is a lie. I don't want any of the benefits from it and I don't want to pay for it. The system's going bankrupt. Anything I pay for I'll never see anyway. It's blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional," explained Hansen.

Living without a Social Security number is a challenge, but not a major problem for Hansen. He has no bank account, works only for family members who will pay him "under the table," refuses to get a driver's license, and won't pay taxes. Recently he started his own Internet consulting business.

He just finished high school this year and says he has very few friends who believe as he does. He belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Because of my political beliefs," says Hansen, "I have a lot of trouble getting along at church with a lot of my fellow members." The members of his church believe in "The Articles of Faith," a portion of it reads "We believe in . . . obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." [Same old misinterpretation of Romans 13:1-4, 7, et al!]

(People have developed a general habit of obedience based on vague and imprecise notions of the law. How many of you have taken the time to read, not only the statute or ordinance, but the implementing rules and regulations found in the Code of Federal and State Regulations. These are the promulgating rules that tell to whom the law applies, what activities it applies to and under what circumstances. In short, it show who is liable. The regulations are issued by the government agency (executive branch) responsible for enforcement. Please understand also that you must have knowledge of the terminology used in the various statutes as there are words with double meanings. e.g. the word “state” as used in federal law has two meanings, federal “states” such as District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc. or “state” meaning the several states of the union. – Ed.)

"They told me that the law said I had to have a number," explains Hansen. "I said, 'This is kind of stupid because all these numbers are obtained through the identification I already have.' When you get a driver's license or an ID card here, basically you show them your birth certificate, and to prove residency you write down on a little paper what your address is and sign something that says you're not lying, which is all you do on a voter registration thing."

Ferguson didn't like Hansen's logic. She rejected his application to vote. Hansen contacted many elected officials for help. Some responded and some didn't, but none were of much help so he decided to take it to court.

"The Constitution of Nevada establishes who can vote," explained Hansen. "If you're an idiot, you're insane, and if you don't have residency you can't vote. That's it."

Hansen filed a Writ of Mandamus in the Clark County District Court. The purpose was to have the court order Ferguson to register Hansen so he can vote.

Nevada law states that the "County Clerk shall require a person to submit official identification as proof of residence and identity, such as a driver's license or other official document before registering him."

Hansen presented a diploma from high school and a birth certificate, but Ferguson demanded a Social Security card, driver's license, or a state ID card. [This is an outright violation of USC 42 408(8), andP. L. 93-579, 7, 88 Stat. 1909, (a) (1), and subjects Ferguson to a $10,000 fine and up to 5-years in prison, just for mandating production of the S.S. number!!!!! Amazing chutzpah of 'public officials'!!!!!] Hansen does not have those items and in his petition to the court his attorney stated, "therefore, he presented alternative identification to the Registrar of Voters, but his right to register to vote was refused and denied by the county registrar of voters."

Hansen was more surprised than anyone when his petition was granted by the court. "I didn't think I'd win," he said. On Oct. 19, the court ordered Ferguson to register Hansen to vote, and he now plans to cast his first ballot on Nov. 3.

This may be just the first of many battles ahead for Hansen. He does drive a car, and does not plan to get a license.

"The government has no right to regulate who can and cannot drive unless they have proven themselves to be a danger to the community and have been convicted by 12 informed jurors," wrote Hansen in an e-mail message to WorldNetDaily.

"Assuming that everyone is already a danger and by telling us we must have a license to drive is known better as 'prior restraint' and according to the U.S. Supreme Court is unconstitutional."

Hansen also objects to the current law which will implement a national ID card on Oct. 1, 2000. He says that Congress passed the law using illegal immigration control as the excuse.

"The even more ironic twist is that most of the illegal immigrants coming here are filtering from Mexico trying to reap the socialist benefits offered by the federal government. Welfare, government schools, health care, social security, etc. If you want to stop illegal immigration bring back the American way of work hard and succeed as opposed to show up and leech off the tax payers," wrote Hansen. [Great wisdom and intelligence from an 18-year-old! It puts a lot of older folk to shame.]

He concluded his e-mail by saying, "There is nothing they can ever do to make me surrender my personal freedom, nothing. I don't know a lot of people who exercise freedom to the point of fanaticism I do. I will not pay federal income tax; I will not be marked by their unconstitutional anti-Christ numbers. I will not take any of their socialist benefits. I will not bow before any bureaucracy. I will not surrender my God-given freedom to those bastards for any reason."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Bresnahan is a contributing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, and is the author of "Cover Up: The Art and Science of Political Deception."
You may e-mail him at mailto:David@talkusa.com

Global War Looms?


Top U.S. Officials Discuss Expanding ‘Terror War’ to Iran, Beyond


A secret, quiet meeting in Kuwait between some of Washington’s top war hawks could signal that Iran is next on the chopping block.


By Gordon Thomas


Two weeks ago, a prince of the Kuwaiti Royal family received a phone call from an aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking if the complex was available. The prince already suspected it was needed for one of those secret meetings, which Washington has taken to holding in the Gulf.

The next day a Hercules transport landed at Kuwait’s international airport. From it emerged a group of pale-faced, middle-aged men in drill shirts and chinos. They carried laptops and bulky briefcases.

To a casual observer they were just another delegation from Washington involved in post-war Iraq. But these men were the forward planners for the next war—the one against Iran.

Within an hour of installing themselves in their palatial surroundings—securely guarded by U.S. forces—they had unloaded their maps of Iran, downloaded their computer images of its terrain and set about planning “Target Iran.”

Secure communications lines had been established and tested with Washington. One was to the CIA, another to the Pentagon. Down those lines and on to their secure computers, the Kuwaiti task force would receive the latest intelligence from inside Iran.

Some of that intel would come from Israel—from Mossad deep cover agents in Tehran.

They will ensure that “Target Iran” being planned in that royal complex would lack nothing in information. The men based there are a Pentagon think tank for the next war.

They are some of the “neo-cons”—a new breed of “conservative” intellectuals who are determined to steer the Bush administration toward an even more aggressive, go-it-alone posture. They are headed in Washington by the hard-liner, John Bolton, the under-secretary of state for arms control.

The day the “neo-cons” landed in Kuwait, Bolton, a political mirror image of Rumsfeld, had issued a new warning about a supposed nuclear threat posed by Iran.

Bolton did so in a speech to the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington. His theme was the nuclear dangers “this administration intends to confront once the war with Iraq is over.”

He concluded: “In the aftermath of Saddam, dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program will be of equal importance to dealing with the threat that North Korea continues to pose.”

His powerful audience—many of them key lobbyists for Israel on Capitol Hill—gave him a standing ovation. This was what they had come to hear. After Iraq—Iran.

They knew that Bolton, a grey-suited saturnine man with a colorless speaking style, was there as the front man for other powerful men in the Bush administration. They include Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. They are the most senior Pentagon officials after Rumsfeld.

Other members of this group include Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and Elliot Abrams, in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council. All are key supporters of Israel. They also form the very core of advocacy for Bush’s “muscular democracy.” This is dedicated to attacking America’s “enemies” head on.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, in a recent speech in Los Angeles, said: “The Iraq campaign is really just the start of the Third World War and one that may well last for decades.”

The neo-cons in their Kuwait redoubt had brought with them to the hot desert sands a list of targets. They included Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Cuba, North Korea and eventually China.

In their briefcases was a copy of what has become their leitmotif: the briefing paper CIA Director George Tenet prepared for Bush on overall global strategy.

“By 2015 China will have deployed many missiles with nuclear warheads targeted against the United States, mostly more-survivable land and sea mobile missiles,” states the paper.

To prepare for the attack on Iran—expected in early 2004, less than a year from now—the team of analysts, logisticians and support specialists gathered in the Kuwait holiday complex. They have been ordered to get their plans for an assault on Iran up and running.

“Target Iran” will follow the same ruthless, all-consuming path as the destruction of the Saddam regime.

IRAQI BASES

Already, in the plans to rebuild Iraq, the Pentagon has earmarked Saddam’s military airfields for its use against Iran.

U.S. bases in Afghanistan will provide the most powerful air force in the world with the ability to launch a pincer air attack.

This will be supported by U.S. carriers and missile-launching battleships in the Gulf.

Turkey will be dragooned into allowing its air space to be used for northern air attacks.

The neo-cons estimate that Iran can, in the words of Bolton, be “rolled-over” in double quick time, “probably quicker than it took to wrap up Saddam.”

The mullahs of Tehran are, in comparison to Iraq, poorly equipped. Their aircraft, in modern terms, are nearly vintage. They have nothing to match America’s F-18s or its tank-busters.

True, on the ground it can put into the field a substantial army. But again, it is ill equipped to fight a modern tech-war.

The neo-cons press on—ignoring the warning of seasoned diplomats in the State Department.

Two of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s advisers wrote a memo to him stating there was a growing risk that the policies advocated by Bolton and his group are “spreading growing resentment around the world.”

A copy was faxed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It would not have influenced her. She is the hard-liner closest to Bush. She is the soft-spoken and articulate voice of the architects of American military might.

In the early days of the Bush administration, she kept the peace between Rumsfeld and Powell.

In a memorable phrase about this part of her work, she said: “my job is to let Colin talk people to death while allowing Donald to say he is going to hit him over the head if they didn’t listen.”

But now she is firmly in the Rumsfeld corner. Powell, for all his brave words about the war in Iraq being essential, is still becoming increasingly marginalized. His personal relationship with Rice has been reduced to frosty smiles at cabinet meetings.

At the meetings Bolton holds with his key Pentagon officials, with Rumsfeld sometimes sitting in, Powell is excluded.

The key element of their plotting is that Iraq is the natural “road map” to dealing with Iran.

Which road will Bush finally take? The answer almost certainly lies in the Washington calendar for action.

Another U.S. election year approaches. The all-powerful Israeli lobby in the United States will press hard for action so that Iran can no longer pose a threat to Israel.

And just as hard-line Zionists like to say, “next year in Jerusalem,” so its hawkish Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has started to murmur “next year in Tehran—God and Mr. Bush willing.”


Source: American Free Press, Vol. 3, No. 26, July 7, 2003
To subscribe visit our website: http://www.btpholdings.com/afp.html

HAPPY BELATED FOURTH OF JULY EVERYONE

John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy



AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.




When John Quincy Adams served as U.S. Secretary of State, he delivered this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.