America's day of reckoning is at hand

Paul Craig Roberts
Online Journal
Tuesday November 27, 2007

Pat Buchanan is too patriotic to come right out and say it, but the message of his new book, Day of Reckoning, is that America as we have known her is finished. Moreover, Naomi Wolf agrees with him. These two writers of different political persuasions arrive at America's demise from different directions.

Buchanan explains how hubris, ideology, and greed have torn America apart. A neoconservative cabal with an alien agenda captured the Bush administration and committed American blood, energy, and money to aggression against Muslim countries in the Middle East, while permitting America's domestic borders to be overrun by immigrants and exporting the jobs that had made the US an opportunity society. War and offshoring have taken a savage economic toll while open borders and diversity have created social and political division.

In her new book, End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf explains America's demise in terms of the erosion of freedoms. She writes that the 10 classic steps that are used to close open societies are currently being taken in the US. Martial law is only a declaration away.

The Bush administration responded to September 11 by initiating military aggression in the Middle East and by using fear and the "war on terror" to implement police state measures at home with legislation, presidential directives, and executive orders

Overnight the US became a tyranny in which people could be arrested and incarcerated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusation. Both US citizens and non-citizens were denied habeas corpus, due process, and access to attorneys and courts. Congress gave Bush legislation establishing military tribunals, the procedures of which permit people to be condemned to death on the basis of secret evidence, hearsay, and confessions extracted by torture. Nothing of the like has ever been seen before in the US.

The cancer might have metastasized if the Guantanamo detainees had actually been the dangerous terrorists and enemy combatants that the Bush regime declared them to be. Had the administration actually possessed evidence against the detainees, the Bush regime might have succeeded in dispensing with the Constitution. Conviction of the detainees could have led to what Wolf calls a "fascist expansion." Following the exercise of its new powers, the regime could have broadened the definition of terrorist to include the regime's critics, thus pulling citizens in general into tribunals devoid of civil liberty protections.

It could still turn out this way in the event of another 9/11 attack, whether real or orchestrated. But momentarily the drive toward tyranny has been blunted, because the vast majority of detainees turned out to be hapless individuals sold into American captivity by warlords responding to the bounty the US paid for "terrorists." Any unprotected individual was vulnerable to being captured by Afghan and Pakistani warlords and sold as a "terrorist." The Americans needed to show results, and the Bush regime needed "terrorists" in order to feed the fear its propaganda had generated.

In Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, the absence of evidence would not have mattered as the judicial system produced the results demanded by the tyrants. However, the US military had not been sufficiently corrupted for the Bush regime's Guantanamo agenda to succeed. Honorable officers, such as Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, were able to discern that the US government had no information on the detainees and used interrogations in order to rubber stamp the a priori determination that a detainee was a terrorist or enemy combatant. Military officers made these revelations known to real courts before the tribunal process could establish itself.

CounterPunch writer Andy Worthington's recently published book, The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison, proves that the regime's claim that it had hundreds of dangerous terrorists at Guantanamo was just another Bush administration lie.

Currently, support for Bush, Cheney, and the neoconservative agenda is low. However, Congress, the press, and elections have proven to be feeble opponents of the Bush regime's drive toward war and tyranny. It remains to be seen whether the regime has sufficient credibility or audacity to initiate war with Iran or a false flag attack that would revive the fascist expansion of which Naomi Wolf warns.

The Bush administration has been a catastrophe. Its failures are unprecedented. Energy prices are at all time highs. The US is deeply in debt and dependent on foreign creditors. The dollar has lost 60 per cent of its value against other tradable currencies, and its reserve currency status, the basis of American power, is in doubt. The US has lost millions of middle class jobs which have been replaced with low paid domestic service jobs. Except for the very rich, Americans have experienced no gains in real income in the 21st century. As the ladders of upward mobility are dismantled and the middle class struggles and fails, America is left with a few rich and many poor. America's reputation and credibility are damaged perhaps beyond repair. Congress and the press have enabled the executive branch's disregard of the Constitution and civil liberty. The US is mired in two lost wars which are pushing Lebanon and nuclear-armed Pakistan into deepening political crises.

As Buchanan concludes, "Our day of reckoning is at hand."

Don't look now: Here comes the recession

Colin Barr
CNN
Tuesday November 27, 2007

The cash registers were ringing on Black Friday, but make no mistake: American consumers are jittery, and seem all but certain to push the U.S. economy into recession.

After years of living happily beyond their means, Americans are finally facing financial reality. A persistent rise in energy prices will mean bigger heating bills this winter and heftier tabs at the gas pump. Job growth is slowing and wage gains have been anemic. House prices are sliding, diminishing the value of the asset that's the biggest factor in Americans' personal wealth. Even the stock market, which has been resilient for so long in the face of eroding consumer sentiment, has begun pulling back amid signs of deep distress in the financial sector.

The latest evidence of the long-awaited consumer retrenchment: Chic discounter Target (Charts, Fortune 500) last week reported a weaker-than-expected third quarter, as sales of higher-margin apparel and home goods slowed. Starbucks (Charts, Fortune 500) reported for the first time that customer traffic in its stores declined in its latest quarter compared to a year earlier. Wal-Mart (Charts, Fortune 500) shares hit a six-year low in September after the retail giant posted another wan sales increase.

With consumer spending accounting for about three-quarters of U.S. economic activity, some economists say it is inevitable that the economy will stop growing at some point in the coming year, for the first time since the mild recession of 2001. "Right now, the question is how bad it's going to get," said David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. "The question is one of magnitude."

Not everyone agrees. Many economists believe the Federal Reserve will steer the economy into a period of slow growth but avoid a recession, which is typically defined as two or more consecutive quarters of economic contraction. Indeed, the Fed already has twice cut its overnight interest-rate target, and options markets show investors expect the Fed to cut by another quarter-point at its Dec. 11 meeting, taking the Fed funds bank-lending rate down to 4.25%.

Government officials have steered well clear of recession talk, with recent Fed documents citing instead the risk of "an unexpectedly severe weakening in economic activity." But Rosenberg and others are skeptical of the Fed's influence on an economy staggering under a mountain of personal, corporate and government debt. The economic recovery underway in 2002 was driven by low interest rates and abundant credit availability -- helped along by then-Fed chief Alan Greenspan's decision to cut interest rates as low as 1% in 2003.

Full article here.

Denying the North American Union

Kurt Nimmo TruthNews November 26, 2007

Now that Alex Jones, Jerome Corsi, and others have exposed the plot to establish a “North American community,” that is to say eradicate the national sovereignty of the United States, Canada, and Mexico in favor of a “United Nations of America” based on the European Union, the corporate media and globalist apologists have kicked into over-drive with a propaganda effort to deny reality.

“Nobody is proposing a North American Union,” declared Robert Pastor, correctly identified as the father of the NAU and author of “Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New,” a book published by the Council on Foreign Relations Press in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. Pastor may insist the elite of the three countries, at the behest of transnational corporations, are not interested in a merged superstate, but his argument betrays the fact the former national security advisor dreams of an American version of the European Union.

Pastor is an advocate of NAFTA on steroids, or “NAFTA Plus.” According to Miguel Pickard, in “the early 1990s, when NAFTA negotiators were still wrangling over arcane language, Pastor was proposing ways to ‘improve’ the treaty. According to Pastor, NAFTA was off to a bad start, since negotiators were mostly seeking to dismantle trade tariffs. For Pastor it was crucial to find ways of integrating the three countries, similarly (but with important differences) to what the Europeans had done since the 50s. Years later, Pastor would bemoan that NAFTA’s promise had gone unfulfilled, since it lacked a ‘grand vision’ for the three countries, i.e., a much richer perspective than the emphasis put on trade.” In other words, NAFTA was simply a trade treaty minus the “grand vision” of global integration.

But there is a problem with Pastor’s “grand vision,” namely the people of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are reluctant to give up their national sovereignty.

Pastor, in a conversation with Jerome R. Corsi, “was careful to distinguish that his proposals were designed to create a North American Community and that he never has proposed to create a North American Union as an EU-style regional government,” thus Pastor’s insistence “nobody is “proposing a North American Union.”

But this is, to say the least, deceptive. “The idea seems to be to put new structures in place that change the look of the landscape,” writes Corsi. “[WorldNetDaily] pointed out to Pastor that this step-by-step approach is the same approach taken to create the European Union. The memoirs of Jean Monnet, regarded as the architect of European unity, finally disclosed he had used a strategy of deceit, knowing his plan to form a European Union would never succeed if it were openly disclosed.”

“Pastor in an article entitled ‘NAFTA is Not Enough,’ argued for an incremental process that could head toward the creation of the NAU, all the while providing cover for participating politicians and governments to deny that creating the NAU was their goal,” Corsi argues in a News with Views editorial. In the article, Pastor provides key details on how this stealth process works:

While the three governments of North America are unlikely to step into the debate on long-term goals at the current time, nongovernmental organizations, research institutes, and universities should fill the void with new ideas and old-fashioned cross-border dialogue.

Short of this sort of shadowy incrementalism, the NAU project may be dropped on the fast track by other means, according to Corsi. “Dr. Pastor seems to prescribe that a fear formula is all that is needed for the American people need to begin begging SPP to produce the NAU right now. Pastor openly writes as if the next 9/11 terrorist attack or a future outbreak of some health epidemic such as the avian flu could be just what the NAU doctor ordered as the prescription for the American people to abandon sovereignty in favor of super-regional government control, all in the interest of ’security’ leading to ‘prosperity.’ Or, is it ‘prosperity’ which necessitates more ’security’ via surrender to Big Brother government?”

In predictable fashion, the corporate media is tasked with characterizing those who document the emerging NAU as tinfoil hatters, nut cases, mental patients, conspiracy theorists, etc.

For instance, neocon Charles Krauthammer told Fox News: “I love this stuff because if you ever doubt your own sanity, all you have to do is read this stuff and realize that you’re okay” (see video), while “conservative” Michael Medved lamented what he calls the “paranoid and groundless frenzy… fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state,” never mind the above, well-documented. “I’m sorry to sound cynical and intolerant about this stupidity, but I’m furious, actually – ashamed to be part of a proud medium (conservative talk radio) that increasingly encourages this paralyzing, puerile paranoia,” apparently a reference to Alex Jones and others who continue to flesh out the “incremental” conspiracy Medved refuses to acknowledge.

Drake Bennett writes for the Boston Globe:

Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. But belief in the NAU — that the plans are very real, and that the nation is poised to lose its independence — has been spreading from its origins in the conservative fringe, coloring political press conferences and candidate question-and-answer sessions, and reaching a kind of critical mass on the campaign trail. Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues.

Government officials of the sort, no doubt, that told us Saddam Hussein was about use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or that the air at Ground Zero in New York was safe to breathe.

Finally, it is no mistake the Boston Globe has rolled Ron Paul into its diatribe of transparent denial, as Paul must be roundly discredited and characterized as a kook, primarily because a Paul presidency would most certainly put an end to Robert Pastor’s dream of an American version of the European Union once and for all.

US defense chief urges greater use of 'soft power'

AFP
Tuesday November 27, 2007

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Monday for a dramatic increase in spending on civilian efforts to project US "soft power" globally through diplomacy, foreign aid and public relations.

"We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen," Gates said in a speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas.

Gates said greater civilian participation was needed for the success of military operations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan but also to head off problems before they turn into conflicts.

He said the 36 billion dollars a year the United States budgets for foreign policy programs is "disproportionately small" when compared to a military budget that is now close to a trillion dollars a year.

"What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on civilian instruments of national security -- diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development," he said.

Noting the irony of a defense secretary advocating spending on diplomacy, Gates said "I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use 'soft power' and for better integrating it with 'hard power.'"

He was particularly scathing about Washington's failure at "communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture."

Full article here.

Alleged Trainer Of 9/11 Hijackers a CIA Informant

Sakka attempts to plug holes in 9/11 official story, claims Hanjour did not pilot Flight 77

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The man who claims to have trained six of the 9/11 hijackers is a paid CIA informant according to Turkish intelligence specialists, who also assert that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to foment a strategy of tension around the world.

In a London Times report, Louai al-Sakka, now incarcerated in a high-security Turkish prison 60 miles east of Istanbul, claims that he trained six of the 9/11 hijackers at a camp in the mountains near Istanbul from 1999-2000.

Sakka was imprisoned in 2005 after being caught making bombs that he planned to use to blow up Israeli vessels.

Sakka asserts that he is a leading Al-Qaeda operative, having directed insurgency attacks in Iraq and also the beheading of Briton Kenneth Bigley in October 2004.

Some of Sakka’s account is corroborated by the US government’s 9/11 Commission. It found evidence that four of the hijackers – whom Sakka says he trained – had initially intended to go to Chechnya from Turkey but the border into Georgia was closed. Sakka had prepared fake visas for the group’s travel to Pakistan and arranged their flights from Istanbul’s Ataturk airport. The group of four went to the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar and the other two to Khaldan, near Kabul, an elite camp for Al-Qaeda fighters.

When Moqed and Suqami returned to Turkey, Sakka employed his skills as a forger to scrub out the Pakistani visa stamps from their passports. This would help the Arab men enter the United States without attracting suspicion that they had been to a training camp.

"But, as with many things in the world of Al-Qaeda, there might be smoke and mirrors," reports the Times. "Some experts believe that Sakka could be overstating his importance to the group, possibly to lay a false track for western agencies investigating his terrorist colleagues."

However, when one considers what other experts have said about Sakka, it appears that his intentions towards "western agencies" are anything but deceptive - since Turkish intelligence analysts concluded that Sakka has been a CIA asset all along.

Prominent Turkish newspaper Zaman reported that Sakka was hired as a CIA informant in 2000, after receiving a large sum of money from the agency. This would explain why he was "captured" but then released on two separate occasions by the CIA during the course of 2000.

Sakka was later captured by Turkish intelligence but again ordered to be released after which he moved to Germany to assist the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Shortly before 9/11, Sakka was allegedly hired by Syrian intelligence - to whom he gave a warning that the attacks were coming on September 10th, 2001.

In his book At the Center of the Storm, former CIA director George Tenet writes, that “a source we were jointly running with a Middle Eastern country went to see his foreign handler and basically told him something big was about to go down.”

"This is very likely a reference to Sakra, since no one else comes close to matching the description of telling a Middle Eastern government about the 9/11 attacks one day in advance, not to mention working as an informant for the CIA at the same time. Tenet’s revelation strongly supports the notion that Sakra in fact accepted the CIA’s offers in 2000 and had been working with the CIA and other intelligence agencies at least through 9/11 ," writes 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson, who was also interviewed for the London Times article.

Were the alleged "interrogations" of Sakka on behalf of the CIA merely a smokescreen to enable instructions to be passed on? This is certainly the view of Turkish intelligence experts, who go further and conclude that "Al-Qaeda" as a whole is merely a front group for western intelligence agencies used to foment a "strategy of tension" around the world.

Is Sakka still in the employ of western intelligence agencies? His apparent effort to plug the holes in the official 9/11 story is fascinating.

According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11.

The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane (Hani Hanjour) “could not fly at all” according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how “adept” he was on his first flight.

Exactly how "adept" one has to be to pull off maneuvers that would be impossible for veteran crack fighter pilots is not explored in the Times report.

Congress, Courts Examine 'State Secrets'

By PAMELA HESS – 17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — In federal courts and on Capitol Hill, challenges are brewing to a key legal strategy President Bush is using to protect a secret surveillance program that monitors phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.

Under grilling from lawmakers and attack by lawsuits alleging Bush authorized the illegal wiretapping of Americans, the White House has invoked a legal defense known as the "state secrets" doctrine — a claim that the president has inherent and unchecked power to shield national security information from disclosure, either to plaintiffs in court or to congressional overseers.

The principle was established a half-century ago when, ruling in a wrongful-death case brought by the widows of civilians killed in a military plane crash, the Supreme Court upheld the Air Force's refusal to provide an accident report to the plaintiffs. The government contended releasing the document would compromise information about a secret mission and intelligence equipment.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, believes the White House has gone too far in invoking state secrets to halt civil lawsuits.

"We have the authority to define the state secrets doctrine," Specter says. "I don't think that the simple assertion of state secrets ought to be the end of the matter."

Specter, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and others are working on legislation that would direct federal judges to review the president's state secrets claims and allow cases with merit to go forward.

Practices among judges vary. Some accept state secrets claims outright, dismissing cases on the government's word. Others read the privileged information and decide for themselves, but almost invariably side with the government, according to legal scholars.

The draft legislation is modeled on procedures used in criminal cases that involve classified information. The Classified Information Protection Act lets judges review classified information a criminal defendant wants to use in his defense, but which could compromise national security if it were released publicly. The law allows the court to delete classified passages, substitute summaries of the information, or substitute a statement of facts that the classified information would prove.

The measure could become part of the Senate's new eavesdropping law, expected to be voted on in early December, the aides said.

In another challenge to Bush's position on classified material, a federal judge in Virginia last week ordered the government to give trial prosecutors, defense lawyers and her clerk security clearances to review classified material in a terrorism case. Defense lawyers say the material will show the government failed to turn over evidence obtained by illegally monitoring their client's communications, and they want a new trial. The government says the information is protected by the state secrets privilege.

And in an Oregon case, a U.S. district court judge is set to decide whether the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act trumps presidential claims of secrecy.

Adopted after the Watergate scandal, FISA dictates when the government must get permission from a secret court to monitor electronic communications inside the United States. It also allows people who believe they were spied on illegally to sue the government for damages and to request materials that would prove the surveillance. If the attorney general says disclosure would harm national security, a district court may review the classified materials privately to determine if the surveillance was illegal.

That civil liability provision of FISA, however, comes up hard against the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush secretly authorized the spy agency to intercept international communications coming in and out of the United States that were believed to involve foreign terrorist organizations, according to the White House. It did so without going through the FISA court, claiming the Constitution and Congress' authorization to use military force after the terrorist attacks were all the authority the president needed to undertake the program.

Privacy and civil liberties groups say the warrantless surveillance violates FISA's prohibition on domestic surveillance without court orders. But for someone to sue the government for FISA violations, they must prove they were directly injured by the government's action. That is nearly impossible because the government will not disclose its targets or methods.

One organization, however, believes it can demonstrate it has standing to sue because of an accidental document release in 2004. That February, the Bush administration froze the assets of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Muslim charity the United Nations Security Council alleges is associated with al-Qaida. In preparation for a legal proceeding on the terrorist designation in August, the Treasury Department inadvertently gave the foundation's lawyers and directors a top secret document dated May 24, 2004.

The document appeared to be a government summary of phone conversations it monitored between foundation lawyers and directors, according to a Washington Post reporter who received a copy from the foundation.

The FBI took the document from the Washington Post and Al Haramain in October 2004.

Fourteen months later, The New York Times revealed the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. That is when the foundation's lawyers realized what the top secret document was: proof the organization had been targeted for warrantless electronic surveillance under TSP. They believe that proves standing, unique among plaintiffs in dozens of surveillance cases filed across the country.

The government, however, asserts the states secrets privilege and refuses to release the document or confirm its contents. In its first crack at the case in 2006, the federal court in Oregon partially agreed. It said the document was rightfully protected by state secrets, but the foundation's lawyers could describe what they remembered about it to establish standing in their lawsuit.

The government appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, which last week upheld its state secrets claim. But it did not dismiss the case. Instead, it directed the lower court to tackle one question it had sidestepped: whether FISA overrides the common law state secrets privilege. While on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, the case was transferred, so it will be decided by United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Whatever the lower court decides, its decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, say legal experts and attorneys on the case. The high court is unlikely to be friendly to a challenge to the state secrets doctrine. In October it unanimously declined to hear a CIA torture allegation case that the Bush administration wanted dismissed on secrecy grounds. And in 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state secrets doctrine in an espionage contract case.

(This version CORRECTS which district court the case was remanded to. It had been transferred to another district court while the appeals ruling was pending.)

Family Shocked, Outraged after Deputy Shoots Pet Dog in their Yard

Nate Eaton
KIDK News
Wednesday, November 21, 2007

A Teton County, Idaho family is outraged after they say a sheriff's deputy tried to murder their dog in their own front yard.

The Barboza family has owned their dog Bobby for five years. A few days ago they say a Teton County Idaho Sheriff's Deputy knocked on their door demanding to see the dog.

Leonel Barboza, Dog Owner: "He says, 'I'm here to put him down. I'm here to kill him.'"

The officer told Leo Barboza there had been a complaint Bobby had bitten someone.

Barboza: "I said, 'Do you have any proof or anything?' He says, 'I don't need any proof.'"

So Leo got the dog while the deputy pulled out a rifle from his car. They walked a few feet from the Barboza's home where Leo's wife and his three year old son were inside.

Leo and the officer tied the dog to a pole when the deputy fired three shots. The dog then collapsed. Leo's son heard the gunshots and opened the front door. Meanwhile...

Barboza: "A bunch of kids just got off the bus and they were all on the street. All the kids were watching the officer shooting the dog. My heart was broken seeing an officer killing my dog."

The deputy then got in his vehicle and drove away leaving the dog bleeding profusely from his head almost dead.

Barboza: "I came back inside with my wife and hid. We were hugging each other crying about our dog because we were gonna miss him. He's been with us for five years."

That night Leo's father-in-law, who witnessed the whole thing, had a nervous breakdown and had to be hospitalized. When the family returned home from the hospital a few days later, they were shocked to see their dog alive.

Barboza: "My wife called me up and she's like, 'Hey, the dog's alive!' I was like, 'What are you serious?' I was happy my dog was alive."

The Teton County Idaho Sheriff wouldn't say much about this case except that it's still under investigation. He also said there's been numerous complaints about the Barboza's dog. But when I checked court records, I could only find one complaint filed last year and that was dismissed.

Nate Eaton, Channel 3 Eyewitness News: "Did your dog ever bite anybody?"

Barboza: "Not to my knowledge. No."

Eaton: "And this was the first time you'd ever heard of any complaint?"

Barboza: "Yes, this is the first time. I still think about it. You know my kid thinks all the cops are bad because an officer came and shot his dog. Honestly when I think about it I get mad too and I don't trust that officer any more."

The Barboza's took Bobby to the vet. He's now on medication to get the wounds taken care of. The holes in his head will be sewn up after Thanksgiving.

The family has hired attorney Josh Garner. I spoke with him this evening and he says, "If the facts are as they appear, the deputies behavior is disgusting, troublesome, and appalling. The officer needs to be held responsible."

Several sources say the officer is still on duty and still working in the county.

Driver Tased For Asking Officer Why He Was Stopped

Man who refused to sign speeding ticket because he did not understand what it was is tased and arrested by officer who then refused to read him his rights

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007

A man was tased and arrested on a Utah highway after being stopped by an officer and refusing to sign a speeding ticket because he did not understand what offence he had committed or why he had been pulled over.

The encounter, captured on the police car camera on September 14th and released this week, is the latest in a long string of incidents involving the unacceptable use of Tasers by officers on citizens whom the evidence reveals are in no way threatening, acting unlawfully or resisting co-operation.

The video shows the Utah Highway Patrolman pull over Jared Massey and his pregnant wife who also had their baby with them in the car and ask for Mr Massey's license.

Mr Massey tells the officer he does not understand why he has been stopped or what he is being charged with, at which point the officer orders Massey to get out of the car. The officer then puts down his clipboard and immediately takes out his Taser and points it at Mr Massey without any provocation whatsoever, yelling "Turn around and put your hands behind your back" as Massey attempts to point out the speed limit sign and engage the officer in conversation.

A shocked Massey asks "what the hell is wrong with you?" and backs away, turning around as the officer had demanded, at which point the officer unleashes 50,000 volts from the Taser into Massey's body, sending him screaming to the ground instantly and causing his wife to jump out of the car and yell hysterically for help.

Watch the video:

Lying face down on the ground a shell shocked, Mr Massey says "officer I don't know what you are doing, I don't know why you are doing what you are doing" to which the officer replies "I am placing you under arrest because you did not obey my instruction."

Mr Massey then once again asks the officer several times why he was stopped and what he is being charged with. He then asks for his rights to be read and points out that the officer cannot arrest him without doing this. Instead of reading Massey his rights the officer then addresses another patrolman who arrives on the scene sardonically commenting "Ohhh he took a ride with the Taser" to which the other officer answers "painful isn't it".

The icing on the cake comes at the end of the video when the officer LIES to his own colleague about the encounter, clearly stating that he verbally warned Massey he was going to tase him, as is the law, when there was no warning whatsoever.

Mr Massey is planning to file a lawsuit against the Utah Highway Patrol. He says he was already slowing down as he approached the 40 mile per hour sign in the construction zone outside of vernal. All charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped.

This amazing video reveals how eroded civil and constitutional rights have now become. The officer had no legal right to make Massey sign any document he did not understand

Tasers are supposed to be the last response before lethal action, however, police now use them as if they are batons or pepper spray.

In the last year over 300 people have died in admitted cases in the US alone from being tased. In the last week alone we have posted three separate stories of Taser deaths. Every week we post stories of incidents, which often feature old women, children and disabled people as the victims. The weapons are even being used in schools.

The police are now trained that "pain compliance," a euphemism for torture, is acceptable in apprehending anyone even if that person poses no physical danger. If you electrify any person, they suffer extreme pain and stand a high chance of being killed.

Despite this, idiotic media hacks such as Fox News host Brian Kilmead are happy to promote police state tactics, selling the idea that protestors or people that merely question authority in any way are threatening and should be tased or "beaten to a pulp".

This phenomenon is out of control, how many more acts of wanton police brutality, torture and death by means of tasering are we to endure?

Taser use is being abused by police all over the country and beyond as cops are trained that torture is a perfectly acceptable response to somebody who acts out of the ordinary, asks the wrong question or refuses to show their papers.

Zogby Analyst Says Ron Paul Strongest Contender to Beat Hillary

Texas Congressman's popularity amongst Democrats, Independents outstrips Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul is only chance of smashing Bush-Clinton power monopoly

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Zogby's Director of Communications and polling analyst Fritz Wenzel says that Congressman Ron Paul is the strongest of the Republican frontrunners to go up against Hillary Clinton, underlining the fact that the rest of the field are just ringers as the establishment prepares to install Clinton and prolong the Bush-Clinton power monopoly.

"Among Democrats, yes, he would be a much stronger candidate than any of the other three (Romney, Giuliani, Thompson)" Wenzel told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.

A new Zogby poll commissioned by Jones Productions found Ron Paul the GOP winner in a blind poll that included Democrats, Republicans and Independents nationwide.

"He is anti-war and the majority of Democrats are anti-war, he has some other ideas and policies and stances on issues more attractive to Democrats, particularly conservative Democrats," said Wenzel.

"Even among independents, he is far and away a more attractive candidate," he added.

As we have highlighted before, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who will not seek to lead the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran, something that leading Democrats Obama, Clinton and Edwards have all vowed to keep "on the table."

Ron Paul voted against the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, both of which were supported by Hillary Clinton.

Every other Republican candidate besides Ron Paul stands no chance of coming out on top if they go up against Hillary Clinton for the 2008 presidency.

Wenzel agreed that Ron Paul's momentum is something that outstrips all the other candidates and gives him a real chance of performing well.

"He's right on schedule," Wenzel said. "He's making all the right moves, going in the right direction...at a time when other candidates are not moving."

Wenzel based his analysis on recent nationwide polls that show Ron Paul could win in New Hampshire and find his support intensifying with room to gain.

"Here's why his timing is almost perfect. He's moving up...but it's not so early that he's going to get a big backlash," Wenzel added.

"6 weeks to 8 weeks out before an election is about the time if you're going to make a big move from the back to the front-- that's when you want to make it," he concluded.

Ari Fleischer’s Freedom’s Watch Involved In ‘Marketing Sessions’ To ‘Sell’ Iran War

You Tube
Wednesday November 21, 2007

In September, the New York Times reported that the White House front group Freedom’s Watch, led by former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, was considering a “national advertising campaign” to make the case for war with Iran, claiming that “Iran poses a direct threat” to U.S. security. Previously, Freedom’s Watch doled out $15 million to flack for the Iraq escalation.

While 63 percent of Americans oppose to military action in Iran, Freedom’s Watch apparently believes it can coax the public into another war. Laura Rozen reports that Freedom’s Watch is involved in test-marketing “language” to sell war with Iran. Laura Sonnemark, an attendee of the sessions, describes her experience:

After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she found, to her surprise, that she had been called in to help some of the country’s most prominent hawks test-market language that could be used to sell a war against Iran to the American public. […]

“He was asking questions about [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad going to speak at Columbia University, how terrible it was that he was able to go to Columbia and was invited,” Sonnemark says. “And he used lots of catch phrases, like ‘victory’ and ‘failure is not an option.’” […]

“After two hours, [the leader] asked three final questions,” Sonnemark recalls: “How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?”

While the focus group was commissioned by another organization, Freedom’s Watch reportedly “shared information” produced by the session.

In the next step of their PR campaign, the Freedom’s Watch announced a redesigned website yesterday, complete with a new blog, “guest posts by prominent conservative figures,” and ways for visitors to be “heard directly by their members of Congress.” In an e-mail blast to supporters today, President Bradley Blakeman states, “our efforts have just begun.”

These attempts to sell war with Iran smack of the White House’s efforts to sell the Iraq war. In August 2002, Karl Rove chaired the White House Iraq Group, whose mission was to “develop a strategy for publicizing the White House’s assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.” At the same time, Fleischer was propagating these false assertions to the public.

As a founding member of Freedom’s Watch, it is no surprise Fleischer is importing his White House propaganda tactics for war with Iran.

UPDATE: Phoenix Woman at FireDogLake has more.

Bush 'involved' in CIA leak case

BBC
Wednesday November 21, 2007

A former White House press secretary has said the US president was involved in misinforming the public over the leaking of a CIA agent's identity.

In an excerpt from his book, Scott McClellan says George W Bush helped mislead the public over the role in the affair of two White House aides.

The CIA agent, Valerie Plame, says her identity was leaked because her diplomat husband opposed the Iraq war.

The White House said Mr Bush would not ask anyone to pass false information.

Lawsuit

Mr McClellan's book is not scheduled for publication until April and the excerpt released was brief.

It refers to a White House press conference he attended in 2003.

At the conference, Mr McClellan told journalists that the two aides Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in leaking Ms Plame's identity.

The excerpt reads: "There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice-president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Mr McClellan, who served as press secretary from 2003 to 2006, has made no further comment on the excerpt.

Full article here.

Cafferty's viewers warn of 'the slippery slope to a police state'

Mike Aivaz and Muriel Kane
Raw Story
Wednesday November 21, 2007

Boston police are trying to get guns off the streets by asking parents in high-crime areas to let detectives come into their homes without a warrant and search their children's bedrooms.

There has been considerable controversy over the program. For example, former Boston police lieutenant Thomas Nolan, who now teaches criminology at Boston University, complained that "I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution. ... The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

Jack Cafferty discussed the controversy on his CNN show Monday, highlighting the objections by civil liberties advocates that parents "may be too intimidated to say no to the police or may not understand the consequences if they say yes."

Cafferty also noted that Boston police say a similar program in St. Louis was highly successful, finding guns in half the homes that were searched, and have promised that they would never abuse the program to gain access to the homes of people under suspicion or make arrests for small amounts of marijuana.

However, the St. Louis program was effective only during a brief period in 1994-95, when youth violence was at a peak and community support high. It later switched over to a focus on traditional warrants and arrests and was ultimately discontinued.

Cafferty then asked his viewers to respond to the question, "Should Boston police be able to enter private homes without a warrant to search for guns?" He read excerpts from the responses during a follow-up segment.

Although one viewer suggested that "concerned parents would welcome this," the general reaction appeared to be strongly negative, to the point where Cafferty suggested it might be because the question had not contained the phrase "with permission." He apologized repeatedly for that omission, both before and after reading from viewers' comments.

One viewer wrote in warning about "the slippery slope to a police state." Another insisted "absolutely no entry without a warrant ... no fishing expeditions." Yet another wanted to know, "Since when did Boston secede from the U.S. and the constitutional safeguards against illegal searches?"

And one raised the specter of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asking, "Did someone make Gonzo the Boston Police Commissioner? Why would anybody in their right mind invite the police into their home to conduct an illegal search for illegal guns?"

The following video is from CNN's Cafferty File with Jack Cafferty, broadcast on November 19, 2007

Supremes to Decide if Second Amendment Means What It Says

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007

“In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun,” reports ABC News.

Carry? Or possess?

“It has been 70 years since the high court has focused on the meaning of the words ‘right to keep and bear arms’ in the Second Amendment and the case is sure to ignite cultural battles across the country.”

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

“The Supreme Court agreed to step in because the issue has caused a deep split in the lower courts. While a majority of courts have said that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an individual’s right to keep a gun.”

A deep split? Apparently, members sitting in the lower courts have a difficult time reading plain English. The Second Amendment states unambiguously that the right to bears arms “shall not be infringed.”

But then there are people like District of Criminals mayor Adrian Fenty, who states: “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die.”

In other words, Fenty thinks he can ban guns and he will not “stand by” the Second Amendment.

The District of Criminals has the highest crime rate in the country, surpassing Los Angeles and New York. Is this possible because guns are banned there and the criminals realize they can victimize anybody they want without consequence?

It seems Fenty is standing by while people die.

But then it is not the responsibility of the police to protect the people. It is the duty of the people to protect themselves.

We’ll see if the Supremes agree. Or if they will strip the Second Amendment to its bones.

Oil reaches new record above $99

Oil prices are creeping closer to $100 a barrel

Oil prices kept climbing on Wednesday, as the dollar remained weak, and closed near $100 a barrel.

(bbc) US light, sweet crude hit a record of $99.29 in Asian trading. London Brent crude rose 50 cents to $95.99 a barrel.

Tight supplies, winter demand and continuing geopolitical concerns have contributed to oil prices climbing by about 45% since August.

Federal Reserve predictions of slower than expected growth in the US next year have also boosted prices.

'Speculative money'

Analysts examining minutes from the Federal Reserve's latest rate-setting meeting, released on Tuesday, said there was a good chance that there would be another interest rate cut in December.

This would be expected to weaken the dollar further as commodities and other currencies and became more attractive to investors, forcing up oil prices, they said.

"Oil prices have every reason to rise," said Koo Ja-kown, crude analyst at Korea National Oil Corp (KNOC).

"Speculative money is coming into the market as the dollar is weakening. On top of that, there are supply concerns for winter fuel."

Oil prices had already risen on Monday and Tuesday, after leaders of producers' cartel Opec decided not to increase production at their latest meeting.

Traders will be carefully watching Wednesday's weekly crude inventory data, released in the US by the Energy Information Administration.

Adjusting for inflation, US light crude's record peak of $101.70 came in 1980 against a backdrop of war between Iraq and Iran.

U.S. growth seen easing into 2008, rate cut in Q1

NEW YORK, Nov 21 (Reuters) - U.S. economic growth is expected to have slowed sharply in the last three months of this year and the Federal Reserve is expected to cut rates by a quarter point in early 2008 and then hold them steady for the next year, a Reuters poll showed on Wednesday.

A prolonged housing slump, high oil prices and renewed tensions in credit markets have pushed up the chance of a recession in the next twelve months to 35 percent from 30 percent in last month's poll.

The survey taken November 15-21 showed gross domestic product growth slowing to an annualised 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 1.7 percent in October's poll.

Economists expect GDP to grow 2.3 percent in 2007, up from the 2.2 percent forecast last month. However, they see growth cooling to 2.2 percent in 2008, lower than the 2.4 percent seen last month.

"The housing sector should continue to weigh on the U.S. economy over the coming quarters," said Michael Englund at Action Economics.

"But the ex-housing economy continues to show a remarkable resilience to weakness in housing and we expect this to continue well into 2008," he said.

The growth projections for 2008 were made before the slightly more optimistic forecasts of the Federal Reserve, which on Tuesday released new three-year projections showing it expected growth in 2008 between 1.8 percent and 2.5 percent. This was sharply down from the 2.5 percent to 2.75 percent forecast in June.

"Renewed stress in capital markets and the surge higher in oil prices underscore downside growth risks," said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Lehman Brothers.

Since September the Fed has cut its benchmark federal funds rate by a cumulative 75 basis points to 4.5 percent to limit the fallout from financial turmoil stemming from losses in the U.S. mortgage market.

Median forecasts for fed funds are for a quarter percentage point cut in the first quarter of 2008 quarter and then holding at 4.25 percent until the first quarter of 2009.

Interest rate futures showed a 92 percent chance that the Fed will cut interest rates by a quarter point to 4.25 percent on December 11. That was up from as low as 70 percent earlier in the day.

Analysts are less certain than markets about the outlook for rates. Thirty-six of 81 predict a rate cut in December, with the other 45 forecasting no change .

Meanwhile, the outlook for inflation looks benign.

Core inflation, as measured by the consumer price index excluding food and energy costs, was forecast at 2.3 percent this year and falling to 2.1 percent in 2008.

The Fed forecast the price index for core personal consumption expenditures at 1.8 to 1.9 percent in 2007 and 1.7 to 1.9 percent in 2008.

Alaskans Recall Alleged Abuse by Jesuits

Wednesday November 21, 2007 9:31 AM

By TIM FOUGHT

Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Holding photos of themselves as children, Elsie Boudreau and James Niksik described what they said were years of sexual abuse by Jesuit priests that led to the announcement of a $50 million settlement.

They said Tuesday that their abusers were venerated in the isolated western Alaska villages where they grew up.

``This is a crime that our parents and our grandparents couldn't even conceive of,'' said Boudreau, who said her photo was taken for her first communion in the village of St. Mary's.

The press conference was held two days after the announcement of the $50 million settlement with the Pacific Northwest branch of the Society of Jesus, which includes Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Alaska. The Jesuit organization's settlement covers 110 Alaska Natives who say they were abused by more than a dozen priests.

``This is how big I was,'' said Niksik, from the village of St. Michael, pointing to a photo of himself and another child at what he said was age 7 or 8. ``We put our trust in the people who taught us religion.''

When he told his father about the abuse, Niksik said, his father didn't believe him.

The settlement does not include the Fairbanks Roman Catholic Diocese, which owned and managed churches in rural Alaska.

The settlement doesn't require the Jesuits to acknowledge wrongdoing, but lawyers for the plaintiffs said the size of the settlement spoke for itself.

John Manly, who has handled several abuse cases, said the plaintiffs believe that church officials knowingly sent ``the worst of the worst'' to isolated villages and that the Jesuits continue to care for abusers. He said he believes abusers are still in the ministry.

The Very Rev. John Whitney, provincial superior of the society, has denied that Alaska was a dumping grounds for pedophile priests.

Whitney said in an interview Tuesday that he has often acknowledged the abuse in travels to Alaska. ``There were Jesuits who abused native people,'' he said. ``I'm deeply apologetic to those who were abused.''

He said three abusers in the case remain alive, in their 70s and 80s, and are living under ``safety plans'' that limit their activities and contacts. To expel them from the Jesuits would end those plans, and ``we take responsibility for them,'' he said.

He said priests alleged to be current abusers in the ministry should be reported to the police and to the organization, which would remove offenders.

Economic Expert Says Global Crash Imminent

Echoes former world bank leader with prediction of global recession

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007

A leading economic expert has warned that a global crash and recession is imminent on the back of record highs in real estate, stocks and energy, combined with a devaluation of the dollar and continued "speculative bubble thinking".

Robert Shiller, the Stanley B. Resor Professor of Economics at Yale University told an audience at the annual Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Week that a sharp downward correction is due in the global markets.

Shiller stated:

"Perhaps we have gotten a little too confident in the global economic growth," said Shiller. "The problem is high oil, stock and real estate prices. I believe that a substantial part is speculative bubble thinking. We have gotten too confident of the prices in these markets,".

"The unwinding of these markets is the most serious risk facing these markets today," Shiller added.

With the effects of the credit crunch hitting more and more lower level lenders, it is clear to see that the fallout is spreading and propagating a general decline. We are seeing the unfolding of an overall meltdown that represents a gutting of the United States by neo-mercantilist institutions bent on the formation of a new global monopoly.

Shiller also pointed to the futures market, such as that of the CME in Chicago, which now predicts a major, ongoing decline over the coming four years.

We are witnessing the unfolding of a crash exactly as predicted by Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz last year.

Stiglitz agreed that the process of hijacking and looting key infrastructure on the part of the IMF and World Bank, as an offshoot of predatory globalization, has now moved from the third world to Europe, the United States and Canada.

Stiglitz warned that the signs were there with plummeting real estate prices in the U.S., stating that a global economic depression could only be avoided if a correction was made.

But no correction will be made because the World Bank/IMF/Globalist doctrine betrays a focused agenda to deliberately foment economic turmoil, riots, and then enforced bondage to eternal debt. We have witnessed this time and time again, their own documents even confirm this as the chosen method of social control.

The shareholders of Federal Reserve, part of the same group of elite families that owns the bank of England, created the IMF and World bank to siphon government funds. Then they effectively steal the real assets of the third world countries that take their loans in some cases at 42% interest. These global loan sharks secure the water, power and roads which are then handed over to private, piratical, letter of mark companies.

Victory Will Come as in Cold War, Rumsfeld Predicts

ELI LAKE
NY Sun
Tuesday November 20, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush's first secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, says the military alone cannot win the war against global jihad.

In a phone interview on Saturday with The New York Sun, Mr. Rumsfeld said the current war is similar to the Cold War, and that America's victory depends on assisting moderate Muslims against extremists and on reforming the domestic and international institutions forged after World War II.

"The concept of victory in this struggle will not be a signing ceremony aboard a ship like the USS Missouri. It will be much more like the Cold War, where, over time, the struggle that is taking place between violent extremists who want to impose their will on the rest of the world, re-establish a caliphate, and require others to live lives that fit their idea of how lives ought to be lived ... that they lose and the moderates who do not want to impose their will on other people, the people who do not want to murder people, cutting off their heads and blowing people up, that struggle will result in the extremists being reduced in numbers and opportunity and support and the people who oppose extremists growing in numbers and being successful in defeating them," he said.

Shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld described victory as a moment when Americans feel safe. Throughout the Bush administration, the concept of victory has evolved from rolling up networks for Al Qaeda and other terrorists and depriving them of safe havens to the outcome in a battle within Islam between those Muslims who seek war with the West and those who don't. When asked to elaborate Saturday, Mr. Rumsfeld said America's task primarily was "to help those people opposing the extremists, to put pressure on the extremists." But he made sure to say, "The idea that you can ignore these enemies or live and let live or find some accommodation of peaceful existence or detente is just erroneous, it can't be done."

Some of these thoughts have been sketched out in internal memos from Mr. Rumsfeld made public last month by the Washington Post. Since resigning from the Bush administration following the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate in November 2006, Mr. Rumsfeld has kept a low profile. In recent books about the Bush administration, he is portrayed as a stubborn cold warrior and hardliner. Among Democrats he has come under special criticism for approving the first round of interrogation procedures for terrorist detainees, procedures that have since been modified. A group of former generals in 2006 began calling for his resignation on the grounds that the war in Iraq was breaking the Army. Even some voices on the right, from outlets like the Weekly Standard, have called for his resignation out of frustration that he sent too few troops to Iraq.

Full article here.

Australia And New Zealand Locked Out Of New 'Asian Union' On Orders Of China

MOLLY BALL
Your New Reality
Tuesday November 20, 2007

We're rapidly moving towards a future where vast sections of the world are united in unions, for the benefits of easier trade and securing future energies supplies, primarily.

The European Union has been a reality since the 1950s, the US-Canada-Mexico will likely meld into the North American Union in the next decade (unless they have a civil war, or major uprising) and it is likely we'll soon see a 'Caspian Sea' Union of numerous 'Stans that border the Caspian Sea, or benefit from its energy resources (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, etc), along with a larger China-Russia-Iran alliance, though perhaps no official Union as such.

For now, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam are moving forward with their new Union and hope to have the deals signed and sealed by 2015. The new Asian 'community' sounds like it be partly controlled by China, with India begging to be included.

Lots of details in this story from Bloomberg :

The 10 members of the group adopted an Asean Economic Community Blueprint that also promises investors better dispute- settlement mechanisms and more transparent and consistent rules.

Member nations say integration, styled after the EU without a common currency or passport-free travel, is essential for the group as it competes with China and India for exports and investments. The Asean countries have a combined gross domestic product of over $1.03 trillion and a population of about 570 million.

Australia and New Zealand were locked out of the 'Asian Union' on the orders of China, apparently:

China, Japan and South Korea agreed to work with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations to open up regional trade, dropping a plan to include India, Australia and New Zealand.

Leaders from the 13 nations said the so-called Asean Plus Three group ``would remain the main vehicle toward the long- term goal of building'' an Asian regional community, according to a statement released after a meeting today. The document makes no mention of the other three nations that will also attend tomorrow's East Asia Summit in Singapore.

Asean secretary general Ong Keng Yong earlier this year insisted that India, Australia and New Zealand would be included in plans to establish a free-trade zone covering all 16 nations who participate in the East Asia Summit. Today's statement recognizes China's demand that only Asean Plus Three countries should be included in the community.

"The Chinese refuse to accept the other three guys,'' Ong said in an interview today. "They have always maintained that the East Asia community is 13 countries.''

China really is starting to rule the world.

North American Union 'a couple years away'

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – The next giant step toward world government will be integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in European Union-style merger in the next few years, says the author of a best-selling book on the power of shadowy international organizations promoting the move.

"I would say [it's just] a couple of years away," reports Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group."

Estulin, a Canadian now living in Europe, says the original plans for a North American Union involved the U.S. and Canada as the prime participants. It was motivated primarily by the desire to harvest Canada's abundant natural resources.

In his new book, Estulin reveals the first efforts in this plan date back to 1996 when the elite Bilderberg Group first discussed plans for the dismantlement of Canada as an independent nation and proposed its merger – minus Quebec – with the United States into a Greater North America.

"Actually, the North American Union, or rather a Canada-U.S. merger, was initially discussed shortly after the Reagan-Bush candidacy won the White House," he says in an interview with WND. "Upon taking over the reins of the country, George Bush and Ronald Reagan called in the presidents of the key trans-national companies and asked them for the real picture. The money people told them that if the United States were a corporation it would have to be shut down immediately. It was bankrupt."

The solution proposed then, according to Estulin, was merger between the U.S. and Canada.

"Canada is virgin country with a multitude of natural resources, water, mines, oil, gas, etc.," he explains. "They decided that it was going to take 14 or 15 years to put the whole project together. In the interval, the economies, social programs and laws of the two countries would be quietly harmonized as much as possible."

Back then, part of that harmonization plan involved the separation of Quebec as an independent state, he says.

"Actually, when all is said and done, it all comes down to money," Estulin says. "Money makes its own rules. If your goal is to make the most money possible using Canada's natural resources, what would you ask for? Number one, give me control over the sun. Number two, give me control over the air. Number three, give me control over water. Now, we know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. Water, after all, is the most important element that can be controlled."

But the plot for a North American Union, as exposed in detail in Jerome Corsi's new bestselling book, "The Late Great USA," is but a prelude, Estulin says, to the ultimate merger – one-world government.

"Everything is in place," he says. "Europe is now one country, one currency and one constitution. North America is about to become one. The African Union has had its working model going for over a decade. Asia is openly discussing the near-future Asian Union, being sold to us as an economic inevitability beneficial to all its citizens."

Estulin sees the current focus in the U.S. on the presidential election of 2008 as something of a farce in light of this trend.

"Does it really matter who wins?" he asks. "As I make very clear in 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,' every politician of note and promise belongs to the Bilderbergers, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or the Trilateral Commission. Unless you are one of them, you can hardly hope to win the presidency. If we vote for the lesser evil, forced upon us by the secret oligarchies and the powerful men behind the curtain, we end up playing the game imposed upon us by them. Democracy, I guess what I really want to say, is a fallacy, an unattainable dream, a useless label trotted out and dusted off by the rulers every four years for the benefit of the great unwashed – us. There are two sides in this equation – the powerful elite who control the world's wealth and the rest of humanity."

Estulin "guarantees" today's Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani will not get the nomination of his party. With less certitude, he speculates the current mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, could still be positioned to head the GOP ticket.

"Bloomberg, according to my sources within Bilderberg, will emerge as a credible candidate of consensus for the discredited American political establishment, your virtual "People's Choice" candidate," he says.

What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?

"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."

Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation need only recall organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Estulin's book, first written in 2005 in Spain, has been translated into 24 languages, most recently this English edition. He has covered the Bilderberg Group as a journalist for more than 15 years.

Why does he singularly devote so much attention to exposing their activities?

"They cannot survive the light, and they know it," he says. "This is why the powerful people have long insulated themselves from that possibility. You see, the greatest form of control is when you think you are free while you are being manipulated and dictated to. People have been disarmed through the greatest hypnotist the world has ever known – the oblong box almost everyone has in the corner of their living rooms known as the television. By persuading ordinary people that what they can see with their eyes is what is there to see, the men behind the curtain have ensured their own survival, because people will laugh in your face when you explain to them that there is a bigger picture they are not seeing."

What is his personal prescription for fighting back? He offers a five-point program:

1. Understanding that governments do not represent the people nor have their best interests at heart.

2. Understanding that corporate media's main job is to hide the transgressions of the most powerful people in the world not shine the light of truth on it.

3. Understanding that the corporate media forms part of the world's elite societies such as the Bilderbergers, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

4. Understanding how money works and how through intelligent use of money we can destroy the Bilderbergers of this world.

5. Getting out of debt now.