I read with interest your response to the letter titled, "What About Taxes" submitted by Ryan Green, Australia, dated 11/22/98. May I suggest that some basic economic points are being overlooked by our fellow Christians who raise this issue. First let's examine exactly what was said about the inscription on the coin. St. Matthew Chapter 22, Verses 20 & 21: (KJV) "And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Notice that Christ did not say the coin belonged to Caesar; Christ knew economics and simply sidestepped the issue because he knew that his listeners probably wouldn't understand anyway. Paraphrasing -- Christ simply said give unto Caesar that which is his. Since "Caesar" was the embodiment of "government" we can rephrase the statement --- give unto government that which belongs to government. This simply raises more questions --- what belongs to government and why? Does all money belong to government? If not, how much belongs to government and how do we determine the amount? All money definitely DOES NOT belong to government. Real money (not the the legally counterfeited stuff being passed as money today) is simply a medium to facilitate the exchange of God's gifts of natural resources which are converted into products. Does government (legislative, executive, judicial) create the natural resources and convert them into products? Who does? Government makes, enforces, and interprets laws --- period! It is a consumer, not a producer, of products. Since money represents products IT BELONGS TO THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE PRODUCTS! But government, kept within its proper bounds, is a servant which provides a protective service to society and therefore is entitled to compensation (money) for it's services.
Now that we see that money, beyond that which is earned by the services provided, does not belong to government, we arrive at the question that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time: How large is the share of products (represented by money) created by the producers (the owners of money) does government have a right to and who is entitled to make that decision? Of course the obvious answer to the last question is the producers. Since government supposedly protects the society (collective whole), its share of the collective products is a collective decision, and therefore very difficult to resolve. Ask a million people how much in taxes they should pay and you will probably get a million different answers. Thus we try to resolve the problem by forming a republic, just as Rome did, and use the majority vote to decide how much in taxes we should pay. As long as government keeps its actions within the proper bounds of protecting the members of society, it's to our benefit to support that service by giving up a portion of the fruits of our productive efforts (represented by money paid in taxes). However, when government turns it's weapons against the very people it's supposed to protect and begins to plunder them, it's insane to continue supporting a government that is enslaving you. Would you knowingly pay a robber to come rob you? Do you have the right to use threats of violence to force your peaceful neighbor to pay a robber to come rob him? That's exactly what many of our fellow Christians are doing and that is what we are doing with our taxes today, just as the Romans did in the days of Caesar.
One final point: the image on the coin examined by Christ was Caesar's. Did that make the coin belong to Caesar? When I was a boy, nickels were circulating with the image of a buffalo on them -- did that make the nickel belong to the buffalo? Also, "Indian head and Lincoln head pennies have circulated. Does that make the pennies belong to the Indians and Lincoln? I hope the basic economics presented above gives a clue about the answer to these last two questions. If Christ had attempted to fully answer the question raised about taxes, he would have had to conduct a lengthy seminar on economics and political philosophy and he knew it, so he very adroitly sidestepped the issue. He could have simply said "pay your taxes" but that is not what he did. His listeners were so ignorant of economics and political philosophy that they didn't even know the right questions to ask and that tells us all we need to know about the level of understanding of those subjects in Christ's day. I'm fully aware that the foregoing comments on government and money raise a lot of other questions, but this is not the place for an exhaustive analysis of the economic and political issues involved.
You have made some good points. If we go ahead and accept the way most people interpret the text quoted, we still have direction. I just read the inscription on my money. It says, "In God we trust" and "The United States of America." I suppose, following Jesus' example, in some minds that would make the money belong to God and to the United States of America." Since we are a people of agreements, it stands to reason that if the nation stops trusting in God, then the other inscription is invalid as well.
I read recently your article "UN comes to focus". I do not know where you get your opinions on peace keeping but they could not be more misleading. I completed a one year tour with the UNIFIL in Lebanon and in there the humanitarian aid, such as food, water, rebuilding and other helping missions have to be protected by gunpoint just to make sure that they can be delivered to those who need it rather than to the warring sides. We NEVER, in training or otherwise, used force or threat against civilians.
When considering the human body, it is true that the little toe never pulls the trigger that takes a life. It is also true that the hip never sits on a couch and an eye never eats food. When the finger pulls the trigger and murders someone, however, the whole body goes to prison and is considered accountable. Mr. Clinton considers U.N. actions in Iraq right now as peace keeping.
During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits.
First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize." The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany." Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement.
Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After Der Fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, party membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press.
Being a Nazi was "politically correct." They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler acquired more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred." Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary." Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order."
The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypsies who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen." Right-wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people."
Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram- rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people.
When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again.
The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters.
Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Paganism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics."
Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers."
Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing," or "patriots" or "militias." They were Socialist monsters.
Thomas Colton Ruthford
From the Washington Times, Reader Comment
June 7, 1998
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. (Just pass a few more laws and we can all become criminals)
Hon. Helen Chenoweth
1727 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1201
November 25, 1998
I'm writing to you about the "Know your Customer" rule being proposed by the FDIC. This measure will force banks to spy on their customers using electronic profiles, limit cash transactions and force an electronic payment system on Americans. The authority for this proposed rule is in section 8(s)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 18189s)(1), as amended by section 259(a)(2) of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-647). I am attaching a letter I have faxed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, stating my opposition to this proposed ruling.
This measure is an outrageous attempt to further control the lives of every American. This law is not directed at fraud or drug lords but at all of us. The government wants to watch and control our every move, and there is no better way to do that then to control our financial transactions. Cash presents a major obstacle to this goal. I ask that you join with others in Congress and demand that the FDIC scrap their plan to limit cash transactions.
I would like to share one other thing with you, and I hope you will take a couple of minutes to read further. I am a former law enforcement officer. I live about 20 miles from Ruby Ridge, and never questioned the government's actions there during the Weaver siege. I know from experience how situations can escalate out of control during an arrest and I figured this is what happened. I felt sorry for the dead marshal, not the Weavers.
In 1993 I viewed a video tape about the Branch Davidians at Waco. As I was watching I dismissed most of it as conspiracy hype. There was about a ten second clip, however, that got my attention. It was the tanks rolling back and forth over the crime scene after the fire had leveled the building. That night I couldn't sleep a wink. The images of the tanks rolling over the evidence tortured my mind. Good law enforcement officers are highly protective of the crime scene -- why would those tanks be allowed to roll over everything like that? Since then, my views of this federal government have changed.
The other night I watched a video called Waco: The rules of engagement. I think every member of Congress should have to watch it. This video made me sick with horror and disgust. I will not share my conclusions in detail, but will say briefly that the federal government senselessly murdered 80 people, wiped out an entire Christian denomination, and then covered it up with the assent of Congress. It has taken me five years to swallow that.
Last year, in your office there in Washington, you shared with me how it was your desire to dismantle our government's socialist policies "piece by piece", and over a process of time return government to the intent of the founders. Since then we have seen the promulgation of the national ID card (temporarily side-tracked but not for long), airport profiling, and now this draconian "know your customer" ruling that will go into force at the pleasure of the FDIC. Helen, I don't think that Congress is turning the clock back at all.
I and many thousands like me are no longer under the delusion that our government is a force for good. I cannot dutifully support it while it works to enslave me and everyone else. I cannot standby and watch while it starves other nations and attacks its own citizens. I will not be numbered and tracked like a dog. I am a human being. Where my conscience demands it I will practice civil disobedience and I will preach civil disobedience, regardless of the consequences. I know there are many more like me, people who once believed in this system but now find themselves to be its enemies.
Firstly, your site is excellent; your team should be commended. Secondly, I was reading you're latest editorial and I noticed something in this section that was a little odd.
The "ministers of God" also do their part proclaiming from the nation's pulpits, "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." They do not mention to their sleepy flocks in any practical way that our souls do not belong to Caesar."
Now the actual verse goes on to say more further on. "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give God what belongs to God" -Matthew 22 21-22
When it's read in its full context the verse is actually saying that you should pay your taxes to Caesar but give god what's really important. It's saying that taxes are of little importance in the greater scheme of things. So the verse is actually saying something quite different than how you used it. Was this your intention?
Anyway keep up the good work!
Ryan Green, Australia
In the case you mentioned, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. They felt He would not support taxes to the Romans so Jesus turned their trap against them. By His statement, Jesus was not making a law or an unconditional statement concerning taxes. Suppose a tax was 100% of what you made plus 20 hours of labor each week. Would that verse be used to support the payment of them? What if the tax was all of your time which meant there was no more time for God?
What is intended by the statement of our soul not being Caesar's is that there comes a time when taxes may not be a matter of money but conscience. When a man sees that his taxes are being used to starve people in other parts of the world, i.e. government sanctions, then one's conscience may preclude the simple paying of taxes. When tax paying becomes immoral, then it is time for God's people to obey God rather than Caesar. This was the point being made. One may never hear the common minister in the pulpit say this. They make a statement or quote a verse but do not engage their mind and spirit.
When I see that my taxes are being used to drop bombs on you, I may decide that "thou shalt not kill" is a higher calling than "give Caesar what he asks." My taxes are my labor. They are a mark on my hand. When my taxes kill, I am made to be a murderer. I would suggest that a viable way to do this is to withdraw from the system so that Caesar has no more claim on me. For instance, if government begins to tax me if I make over $6,000 per year, I may opt to only make $5,000. In this way Caesar has nothing to say about it. When one is all involved in the money system, he is bound to pay for its support and its abuses.
For one to effect an end to the system, he simply needs to stop playing the game. Abusive and immoral government is only kept in power by abusive and immoral men, cowards or unbelievers. Righteous men should come out of that sort of government as Jesus did. They do this by no longer supporting evil men in their evil ways. This is greater than mere government or taxes which are not evil in themselves. When government is taken over by tyrants and perverts, let them buy their own bombs. I will no longer be a part of their antichrist.
I can only hope that not a lot of people visit your web site. The article on Matthew Shepard was so biased with personal opinion, & missing important facts, that it completely lacks credibility. The author forgot to mention in his claims that this was not a hate crime, that the reason that the two men lured him out of the bar to beat and rob him is because he embarrassed one of the men (Price) by flirting with him at the bar. Couple that with the anti-gay statements that the two men made and what kind of conclusion would you come to? This, in my opinion, and in the opinion of millions of other intelligent Americans, was a hate crime. Only another person who was anti-gay would even attempt to try to deny this. Sunny
As we wrote in our article, it was murder. I think we should get real here. You say that this was a hate crime. Are all the other murders love crimes? Since when is murder not a hate crime? All crimes are hate crimes. We resent that this term "hate crime" is used for deceitful and perverted purposes and ushering in the thought police. We stand by our statement.
In your most current on CyberPatrol you wondered who of the founding fathers could have imagined the intrusive nature of corporations in the democratic process.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson
In the news we are seeing an ever increasing rise in the arrests of men accused of viewing or selling child pornography. While I agree that a crackdown of child endangerment must occur, I recently read one of the reasons those people are being arrested. An official was quoted in a news program as saying, "If these people can view child porn then they are the ones whom we need to protect our children from." However, it's the underlying message that is the problem. The message is: 'if we think or believe you are capable of committing a crime, then you should be locked up before you commit that crime.'
Since when has the US become a police state; a country where people can be detained or locked up simply because they "might" fit a certain criminal profile. I believe this action by global law enforcement leads to the eventual arrest and harassment of the true and faithful followers of Jesus Christ.
What the media is failing to present is that the two fellows that are charged were dealing/using methamphetomine. A friend of mine in Colorado owns the property they were renting. They had never been on time with any monthly rent until the last few months. It is believed that the local police had them under surveillance for dealing in drugs. We are only getting the "hate crime" angle to get more unnecessary/illegal legislation to take away more of our constitutional rights.
As a member of a TWA 800 independent investigative group, I would like to applaud your most recent article regarding the tragedy. The lies told to us by the FBI and other government agencies regarding Flight 800 are appauling and countless.
Thank you for taking the correct stand, while reporting the many inconsistencies in the FBI/NTSB investigation--a stand that very few news agencies have been brave enough to do.
First, I want to thank you for the thought and work you have incorporated into your valuable web site.
I am the web designer for conservative talk-show host, Robby Noel, Patriot News Hour - AFN, and we have many links to features on your web site. I have just recently put together a complete list of all Executive Orders 1993-1998 and have added links to Indexes of Executive Orders dating back to 1963. Thought you might have a use for the information.
May God continue to bless your efforts in publishing the truth on the Internet.
Sincerely, Heidi Hoff Wurst
Fort Collins, CO
Thought this might be of interest to you.
"No question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable offense." -- Bill Clinton, ARKANSAS GAZETTE, August 8, 1974,
I have a strong suspicion that CLINTON and YELTSIN are about to bring into fruition a goal which had been a goal for at least ninety years. I've cut and pasted this from some of my notes:
In the early 1950s Tennessee Congressman Carroll Reece chaired an Senate Select Committee investigation into the subversive activities of tax-exempt foundations. The overwhelming evidence compiled by Director of Research, Norman Dodd, was that the vast wealth of the foundations was being funneled into activities that promoted a socialist Anti-American world view. In 1953 Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation, personally confided to Norman Dodd,
"The substance of the directives* under which we operate is that we shall use our grant-making power to alter life in the United States so that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."
The *directives emanated from the White House. Also, having recently come across allegations that CLINTON received funding from the Institute for Policy Studies during the Sixties, I have to wonder if he wasn't groomed for this presidency all his life--sort of an agent-in-place.
Henniker, New Hampshire
This passage was written by John MacGavock Grider, a WWI aviator who was shot down sometime in September of 1918 - just two months short of the armistice. The passage was written shortly before his death in September 1918. It is a diary entry written as Lt. Grider was suffering the latter stages of what was termed "shell shock" in his war and "combat fatigue" in a later war. The passage is taken from the book War Birds, subtitled Diary of an Unknown Aviator written in 1927 by Elliot Springs, a squadron mate of Lt. Grider.
"War is a horrible thing, a grotesque comedy, and it is so useless. This war won't prove anything. All we'll do when we win is substitute one sort of dictator for another. In the meantime we have destroyed our best resources. Human life, the most precious thing in the world, has become the cheapest. After we've won this war by drowning the enemy (hun) in our own blood, in five years time the sentimental fools at home will be taking up a collection for this same enemy (hun) that are killing us now, and our fool politicians will be cooking up another good war. Why shouldn't they? They have to keep the public stirred up to keep their jobs and they don't have to fight and they can get soft berths for their sons and their friends' sons. To me the most contemptible cur in the world is the man who lets political influence be used to keep him away from the front, for he lets another man die in his place. The worst thing about this war is that it takes the best. If it lasts long enough, the world will be populated by cowards and weaklings and their children."
Note: "enemy" is my editing, (hun) is the original quote
This cowardice may now be seen in our "technological wars." We can kill off large numbers of "theirs" while having very few of "ours" hit the dirt. We would not be attacking Iraq if we thought we would get hurt in the deal.
In regard to TWA 800, several months ago, the head of the NTSB said that if a missle shot down the plane, then it was an act of war, which makes it a national security issue, and it will not be discussed. I interpreted that statement as a veiled admission. The bureaucrats are covering it up for supposed national security. But their view of national security is a corruption.
Here's what it means: When Libya was being bombed, the government was portraying itself as invincible. Quadaffi had just purchased some new missles from Russia, and they were worthless against the modern missle jamming technology of the U.S. Air Force. If then, Quadaffi put a couple of those missles on a fishing boat and shot down TWA 800, the U.S. is not invincible, and there is a price to pay for its arrogance.
Iran had a similar motive, since the U.S. Navy shot down an iranian passenger liner a few years ago. The bureaucrats don't want the public to know that there is a price to pay for arrogant foreign attrocities, and that is what is being called "national security."
Gary Novak (email@example.com)
This is in response to Major Kenneth's response on the issue of the American invasion of Panama. I would just like to say that by outright denying that the US armed forces killed Panamanian people etc., he is only confirming what we already know to be true. What happened in Panama was a gross violation of human rights and an obvious act of American imperialism (which seems to happen all too often where America is concerned). Major Kenneth is only making himself seem ignorant and it is my suggestion that he take a careful look at what he is saying. The American government is guilty of huge atrocities and the people involved really ought to be indicted. It is time that America left Panama alone and stopped it's imperialistic actions. It only appears hypocritical for them to speak out against China and other such places when they have such a bad record themselves.
K. Springer, Australia
I have found your coverage of the TWA 800 disaster to be the most balanced, reasoned and fair that I have found so far. Not only victims' families need closure, but eyewitnesses as well. Your service is the best hope, in my opinion, for both groups finding relief.
I had asked Mr. Salinger in about January if he was absolutely certain and he said "more than 99%". If you take the 244 eyewitnesses (and that the FBI and NTSB didn't "bother" to triangulate to see that they all saw it happen in the same area from locations on the south shore of Long Island miles apart), the lies that the Navy told and that they then had to backtrack and admit there was a big test going on that evening, that they lied about the submarines not being there when they were, that evidence was whisked away, that the person has been persecuted who got that small sample showing the rocket fuel on the seats, that so many people have "changed" their views after either pressure was applied or money was given (Congressman Traficant), and that there have been so many lies, lies, lies, there is little doubt as to what happened. Look at what Major Meyer said he saw when he spoke to that Granada Forum; it just makes sense and you can see he's telling the truth. Also Admiral Moorer; he used to be CNO (Chief of Naval Operations, the four star Admiral who is highest rank in the Navy) and then he was Chairman JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff; like Colin Powell had been); he's not lying. Nor is that General Partin of the Air Force who was head of BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization).
I can tell you that if this is actually what happened (and it seems to be) and they are able to get away with a cover-up of this magnitude, they will so emboldened by it and have so little need to fear the truth, that this country will not be a safe or a good place to live in a very few years. I am certain of this. Germany had its time with Naziism, the Soviet Union with Stalin, and now we are approaching that situation. All of those countries had their equivalent to the Pledge of Allegiance and the people were brainwashed (blinded) to the truth. So many are also blinded here now in the U.S. and the media is too cowardly and more concerned about losing some money than it is about anything of this importance. If it continues, they will be the first ones to lose their "freedom of the press" if they haven't lost it already. Take a look at what happened to that little radio or TV station at Waco that warned of the impending "raid" on the compound.
Just got done reading the B'Nai B'rith article. Excellent! I just wanted to add that I find it incredibly ironic that the ADL would be a proponent of gun control (in conflict with the views of the JPFO). The JPFO documents evidence showing that the seven largest genocides this century were perpetrated by governments on their own citizens and were all PRECEDED by gun control legislation. Philosophically, just whose bed does the ADL lie in? Unreal!
I would very much like to protect my very substance from being exploited and patented or tampered with in any way. I am not a lab rat. Do you think it is possible to grab the rights to your body before they do? I'm just totally freaked out after reading: 'Genetic Engineering Going Mad'. Listen to the falling rain.
I've been following The Winds since I got online 18 months ago, and thank you for your informative and inspiring articles. I, however, cannot believe that the White race is the true Biblical Israel, as does Dave Barley of America's Promise Ministries. I have to wonder if, minus the Rothschild agitators who've financed and directed racism and all manner of discord for centuries, we couldn't have lived together--or apart, according to personal choosing--a lot more peaceably. What does Mr. Barley have to say about Moses marrying the Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12? It was Miriam, who spoke against the union, whom God punished.
The Winds takes pains to get the truth out concerning current affairs. We do not necessarily hold the positions of those we quote. Also, we do not necessarily make sense out of some of the arguments that are made by those whose story is being shared. What we want to do is have the truth told about people and hear from people so often misrepresented in the main media. It is our view that men have always had their differences, but evil forces are making those differences bigger than they are so that men will finally destroy each other because of them, thus, playing into the hands of those who want all sides dead.
Concerning your article on American prisons compared to Nazi Germany......isn't the purpose of a prison to PUNISH an offender? All things be equal, torture is criminal, and the torturers, when convicted should be PUNISHED as well.
However, in my humble opinion (and I have no delusions as to how important my opinion is), punishment in itself (hard labor, making large rocks into small ones, chain gangs, etc) does the rehabilitiation through "avoidance" training. If the convict does not want to experience the difficulties of prison again, he or she pays his debt to society, and then does not commit crimes again. Job training, weight lifting, college courses, and all the other "rehabilitative" programs in prisons today are a WASTE of our tax payer dollars.
Personally, I do not support, condone, or tolerate torture for prisoners. However, I also would like prisoners to be punished by HARD labor for the ENTIRE sentence. If it's a life sentence, then they work at hard labor for LIFE. 5 years is 5 years. 10 is 10, and so on.
You may have a point if you are writing of violent offenders. Only 2.5% are there for that reason. 60% are there because they had some dope. Others because they are conscientious objectors to government. Some refused to fill out their tax forms. When the large majority of prison inmates are there for personal preferences that happen to be unlawful, you have an eerily portentious event. The legal system is either terribly wrong or the laws are. Prisons rarely punish offenders, they educate them.
IN THE 12/96 ARTICLE: SLAVERY REINSTITUTED IN AMERICA!
I disagree with the opinion that slavery is being reinstituted. Any one person can take any one issue and compare it to the Constitution or past mistakes in history. Like slavery of the black race in America. Using general statistics and information they can bring up a good and seemingly convincing point. But this is only if they leave out important historical facts as did the author of this generalized article.
For one, Everyone wants to make a buck. I don't blame any individual or group who wants to profit on the prison system while at the same time helps to cut the costs of taking care of the inmates.
Second, When a person commits a crime, be it drugs or homicide, some rights of freedom and other rights are taken away. People know when they are doing wrong. They know that they are risking being given probation, jail, prison time, or the death penalty. Making someone in prison work for next to nothing as long as it pays for their incarceration, helps them rehabilitate, and even gives them job experience is in no way slavery.
Third, The definition of slavery, is a person held in servitude as the property of another. Prisoners are held only for their crimes and to protect the victims or potential victims from them. Not as property. Also, adding detail to the articles generalization. Slaves were beaten, whipped, and tortured into submission as well as murdered and raped. The severity of the articles description only states, "The watchful eye of the cruel task master." and wants the reader to change his or her idea of what slavery really is.
In summery, the prisoner of today is no slave. He or she is one who have placed themselves in the position that they are in. They are not being beaten or tortured into submission, and if they were sick, or injured they are given medical attention. Having a job that pays them only $60 a month is a privilege. And they should feel good about the fact that through their own hands they are supporting themselves.
Your view is somewhat mainline America. Surely it is reasonable to consider things as you do. When one knows nothing at all about the low, evil conditions of our prisons; when one knows nothing of the "crimes" that got many of those folk there; when one is insensitive to the long, lonely days some of those folks spend there and for what reasons, one is amazed and surprised at this reasonableness.
When antibiotics are used against disease, that disease changes form and is harder to treat. When evil practices such as slavery are recognized and a treatment is tried, such as in freeing the slaves, the evil practice merely changes form and is harder to recognize. Slavery today is more pervasive than it ever was before, but few men recognize it as such.
You gave your definition of a slave. Webster also says this: a slave is "a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person." When one is forced to work for another, and punished if he does not work, this would qualify as slave labor. Your comment that you do not blame the officials for wanting to make a buck surprises me. They are making that buck on the back of unfortunates. The large portion of those poor black slaves are only there because they had a drug in their possession that government outlawed. Was not their crime only against themselves? More people die yearly from drunk drivers than from dope.
Your arguments were used by past generations concerning the black slaves.
1. Blacks sold blacks to slave traders with reasonable excuses in their own minds for doing so. Using your argument, the slave traders reasoned that the blacks placed themselves in the situation they were in by whatever tribal laws were broken or other circumstances. Americans believed that African blacks should have expected to lose their rights because of their offenses. Today's prisoners are forced into submission by force or certain kinds of torture which seems reasonable. Someone contacting this office from a prison stated he was placed in solitary confinement for months with no heat until he submitted. Friend, that is torture!
2. Americans were not against someone making a buck for the cost of transportation, and a little profit as well, so as to supply jobs to poor black Africans. Of course these jobs enriched the slaveholders as is done today.
3. Americans believed that to place these blacks in slavery gave them a little spending money and taught them job skills. They may not have used our modern terminology but they reasoned they were benefiting slaves. They were also provided with a place to sleep and food to eat. Their slavery helped to pay for their upkeep.
4. If the slave was sick or injured, he was given the medical attention of the day. They did not want to lose their investment as with today's slaveholders. Americans felt these black slaves should feel good about the fact that they were supporting themselves.
5. Black slaves were not given their freedom until their masters decided they should be free. That is also true for today's slaves. There are legal ways to extend prison stays.
Somehow these arguments don't seem to justify the slavery of times past and neither do the arguments seem right that support prison slave labor if one considers all the factors. When a man is caught with an ounce of crack in his pocket, why should he be put in forced labor for a number of years for that? He may legally have a bottle of vodka in his pocket, but not an ounce of crack. Sorry, no comprenden!
You make the argument that these are lawbreakers. If laws were passed against growing unpatented tomatoes and one could get twenty years of forced labor for growing unpatented tomatoes for one's own personal use, would that moralize the law? Today one may not grow hemp. Hemp has been grown in the world for thousands of years. It is excellent for making ropes and certain types of clothing. If someone grows one hemp plant in his personal garden, for whatever reason, he may have his home confiscated and receive prison time at forced labor. These laws against personal discretion provide a rich source of personnel for the prison industry. The U.S. imprisons a larger percentage of its citizens than any nation on earth. But then, we are not against a man making a buck.
In your article on the Terminator sterilized seed programme for agrobusiness, you mention Stalin's forced famine murdered one million Ukrainians. Actually, there were several famines. In 1921 two million died, and a little over a decade later, entirely through artificial means (people who tried eating spilt seed on the ground were shot), a minimum of seven million Ukrainians were starved to death. If one includes those who were also sent to Siberia and died there, those who were shot or otherwise murdered before they starved, the figure approaches 14 million dead. See the works of Professors Robert Conquest, Mace, the US Congressional committee on the famine's released reports and oral histories, etc. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former US rep. to the UN put it at 14 million. These are conservative figures and do not include additional post-war famines, or war statistics. See also Harvest of Despair (film documentary).
The programme to produce sterile /hybrid seed is decades old; and as you insightfully put it, now becoming close to realization on a global scale. While most food production in the world is now controlled, ultimately, by literally a handful of organizations, it is the small independent farmer with the staple crops the article lists which was technologically just beyond reach of control and dependency on multinational food production controls. Of course the control falls not only over foods for human beings, but which support livestock feed production. Whilst a fiscal windfall, the additional reductions in supportable livestock will greatly increase the numbers you ascribe of those who will starve as a result of inability of farmers and producers to procure new seed stores seasonally or annually. Livestock and poultry not only themselves have use for food, but livestock and human "powered" plows are often the only agricultural "machines" which undergird food production as regards soil plowing/preparation, seeding, harvesting, etc. in the "third" world. Hence reduction in livestock is doubly disastrous to world's food production and reserves.
In reference to your New Technology "Terminates" Food Independence article, the Jackson, MS Clarion Ledger newspaper reported on May 12, 1998 that Delta Pine & Land Company (owner of the new Terminator patent) is being purchased by St. Louis based Monsanto Company. Monsanto, on its own web page, says the buyout will "pave the way for the rapid introduction of the second wave of biotechnology traits, which improve the composition of fibers, the nutritional composition of food and feed, and offer food processors new tools to enhance the value of grains and oil seed crops."
This means, in reality, HIGHER PRICES for grains and oil seed crops! World hunger and/or "universal work for food" slavery will be a reality, even in the USA in nothing flat.
During the second week of March, I was part of a delegation from the cities of Brewster and Bridgeport, Wash., that traveled to Washington, D.C. I left brimming with hope, bolstered by the belief that everyone has a voice in our government and excited about our long-standing appointments to see U.S. Reps. Doc Hastings and Jennifer Dunn, and U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Slade Gorton. I returned frustrated and deeply concerned about the future of our region.
Our first stop was Doc Hasting's office, where an aide was to give us a private tour of the Capitol. The aide was ill and our group of four had been forgotten. No problem, we said, we will take our own tour of government in action. We obtained passes to the Senate, stood in line, checked our cameras, endured metal detectors and searches of our purses and persons, and finally entered the Senate Gallery.
As we sat down, the Senate stood up. They had adjourned. OK It's only 12:30. Let's go to the House. We collected our cameras, went to the House side, ran the same gauntlet of security. We were finally ushered into the House Gallery at 12:45. The House adjourned at 12:50.
We learned later that most members of Congress call it a week on Thursday and return Tuesday morning. Nice work if you can get it.
The next day brought our first appointment, with Hastings. Little did we know, that he would be the only lawmaker to listen to our litany of concerns, all of which seem to fall on the deaf ear being turned toward the voices of rural America. Our list included:
After our visit with Hastings, we trooped over to Jennifer Dunn's office. She failed to show up for our appointment, although we had made it six weeks in advance, confirmed it and traveled more than three thousand miles to keep it. We saw one of her aides.
On we tramped to Patty Murray's office. Sen. Murray gave us, perhaps, five minutes of her time, which did not make up for the arrogant and uncaring attitude we received from her aide.
The next day, we presented ourselves to Sen. Slade Gorton's office. "We're sorry," said his aide, "Senator Gorton is far too busy to meet with you."
Then, to add insult to injury, I crossed paths with a 25-year career bureaucrat. These people do us the most harm. Not only do they not have a clue about rural life, but they question its necessity. After I explained to Ms. Bureaucrat the reason for our trip, she told me that when (not if) our dams are removed, we would no longer enjoy our low electricity costs. This seemed to give her particular glee.
She went on to express her belief that farms have served their purpose, and would probably be unnecessary in 15-20 years. She expects cloned livestock and test tube produce to replace us. Since she lives in an artificial world, I am not surprised that she is counting on artificial food. But I didn't expect to end my trip standing in silence as our employees plot a future without us.
Mayor of Brewster, Wash.
by RON PAUL (R) Texas
(Excerpts from Ron Paul letter)
The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government.
As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew.
I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C.
If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited.
That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill--working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in. So, on that, TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the Constitution.
THE WACO MASSACRE
Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put the few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years.
We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for a big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents.
The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas.
Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians.
After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies--were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves?
A new documentary--Waco: The Rules of Engagement--may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated.
Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing.
In my interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge--especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby--caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone.
BLAME THE ONE WHO REPORTS
Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and--of course--the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?)
I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial.
But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension.
The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, and notes redeemable in them. Not fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse. They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th -century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit. I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress.
GET US OUT!
And then there's my least favorite foreign topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage! Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know its radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America?
Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a maverick who will never go far because he won't 'go along to get along.'" Darn right! What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? To heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either. When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and paintings of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way. When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what I'm fighting for.
(sign) Ron Paul U.S. Congressman
It is with a sad heart that I read your article concerning the writings of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. I bought The Secret Life of Bill Clinton from the school bookstore and I read it through from cover to cover twice. A few weeks ago the film "WACO: The Rules of Engagement" came to campus. I went and watched it along with about 60 other concerned citizens. What I saw made me sick to my stomach. Our government murdered those people, who, by the way, were not cultists but Seventh-day Adventists. Pritchard is right; the militia movement is gaining momentum in this country b/c the people who truly know what it means to be American do not trust the government. Who's fault is this? If the federal government had not done "things" to lose the trust of the people this movement would not be happening.
I remember in the mid to late eighties the local paper published a series of articles about the local militia. Then it praised the brave men and women who took their own time and money to provide a line of defense against the enemy (the Soviets of the time). Now, that same paper has blasted those same people as extremists.
What is wrong with people? Most people blindly listen to what is said on the nightly news without any objective thought. We are led by a government that has conducted illegal and immoral medical experiments on blacks, exposed unknowing citizens to PLUTONIUM (the most toxic substance known to man), put radioactive tracers in our cereal, simulated biological attacks against our major cities with "inert" bio-agents, and practices assaulting our downtowns with army special forces. However, when a new scandal breaks or new corruption is exposed most people say "Oh, well, what do you expect from politicians?"
When are we going to ALL say enough?
When are we going to demand change?
When are we going to set things right?
The answer I fear, is that most people will NEVER do anything.
I found your claims interesting that the federal government has infiltrated certain anti-government organizations and that federal agents encouraged the use of violence by these groups. I found that interesting because that is what happened in Puerto Rico during the 70's when, FBI undercover agents infiltrated alleged communist cells in Puerto Rico. In reality the supposed "communist cells" were nothing more than college kids. The most famous of these cells was made up of 4 guys and the leader of the group was an undercover agent working for the intelligence office of the police department and the FBI. This was the guy who would suggest the "terrorist acts" they would eventually do, and who supplied the materials the group would use to perform those acts. Eventually the group was led to a mountain peak in the Toro Negro Tropical Forrest in the middle of the Island (the highest peak in the Island) to a place where some transmitter antennas for radio and TV stations were located. The date was the 25th of July, 1978. The 25th of July marks the anniversary of the U.S. military invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898 and the proclamation of the constitution of Puerto Rico in 1952.
The leader of the group convinced his comrades to go to the Cerro Maravilla, take over the transmitter installations located there and transmit a strong nationalistic message from there. We must remember that at that time there was no Internet, so "anti-government" groups did not have many ways to proclaim their message, particularly in Puerto Rico where pro-independence forces had been persecuted by the feds since the very beginning. When the 3 guys got there (one of them had refused to go thinking that the operation was unwarranted) they were ambushed by the police. The undercover agent left as a hero with just a minor cut in a hand while the other two "communist terrorists" were captured (when they found themselves ambushed they surrendered) and then they were beaten and shot dead.
This took place about noon, while the government was celebrating both the U.S. military invasion and the constitution (the party in power then was pro Statehood). Immediately the governor declared the police action heroic and the police officers that participated in it heroes.
Several investigations by the local justice department and the Federal Justice Department ratified the official version. Yet in 1980 the leading opposition party gained control of the Commonwealth Senate and launched an investigation of the Cerro Maravilla incident. After about three years of investigation, the truth came out. Yet it stopped at the doors of the FBI. . . The local officers who participated in the ambush were brought to justice but the federal agents got away with it.
Presently, the same political party under which the Cerro Maravilla incident took place is back in power. They reinvestigated the incident, invented another version of it, and want to put the original investigator who broke the case in jail. Now the police superintendent and the next two under him in the chain of command are FBI agents. So any evidence that would point toward the FBI must have vanished long ago. And new phony evidence may have been planted anywhere. . .
The point is that the FBI operation in the 70's in Puerto Rico had the purpose of painting the Pro-Independence Movement in Puerto Rico as "communist terrorists", evil beings that deserved no mercy or public support.
Terrorism has the purpose of terrorizing the people. That is exactly what the Feds did in Puerto Rico in the 70's . . . perhaps they are doing the same thing now in the US.
TO THE EDITOR OF WINDS
Having read your article on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in response to one of your readers I would like to make the following observations. Firstly, it has been proven conclusively in numerous courts of law that the document in question is a forgery and does not reflect the minutes of a meeting of a Jewish cabal aimed at world domination.
AS SUCH IT CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN FORGED WITH THE
INTENTION OF PERPETUATING THE LEGACY OF ANTI-SEMITISM AND
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
Secondly, in my opinion it is laughable to suggest that while the authorship of the document is open to question, it nonetheless describes accurately events as they are occurring in the world today. Sure, there are Jews who do bad things as there are Muslims, Christians and atheists who do bad things but the jump from there to talk of international conspiracy is wholly unwarranted and even ludicrous. Anyone who knows anything about the Jews knows that perhaps more than any other people they are rent by divisions and differences of opinion to such an extent that conspiracy is well-nigh impossible. Zionism itself has as many differing schools of thought within it as does the Christian religion, and a look at the last fifty years bears this out clearly. In these circumstances there can be no talk of conspiracy which by its very definition requires unity of purpose.
Lastly, I must add that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" has invariably found support only amongst purveyors of hate and discrimination since it was found to be a forgery more than half a century ago and this for very good reason. The "Protocols" is per se an anti-Semitic document which vilifies the Jews collectively in such a way that would have made Goebbels proud. Only white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Arab Nationalist extremists and their ilk have use for such a document. I find it unfortunate to say the least that WINDS sees fit to ally itself with such a document and the sentiments embodied in it. This does not befit an organization intent on seeking out the truth and cannot but place the credibility and integrity of such organization in serious question.
South Africa (I am Jewish and also consider myself to be a hot-blooded Zionist)
1. You share your assessment that the Protocols are a forgery. You make the statement but give no evidence to that fact. Please submit your evidence. Who did forge them and which court decisions decided that and on what evidence?
2. I feel your second point misses the argument. Those who have dared to expostulate on this matter of a conspiracy have proposed that only a few individuals associated within a secret society of their own making are fully aware of their financial game plan. This game plan flows downward through the ranks of unsuspecting servants in the form of policy or law leaving them unaware of the repercussion. This explanation would make the great host of disunited Jews and everyone else mostly in the dark about it.
3. Finally, you state that the Protocols are only used by racists of one form or another. Perhaps some racists read the Protocols but they are also read by those who have eyes to see present day realities. You seem surprised that an organization such as The WINDS, which wants to discover the truth, would read or quote from such a document. It seems to this editor that for one to truly know the truth one must not put information away because one feels others consider it tainted. This has historically been the source of societal ignorance and prejudice. We take information that comes our way and analyze it for what it is. In regards to the Protocols, questions arise as to how such a "forgery" could be so accurate in portraying world control and its methods of operation today. We really care not if a chimp wrote them, they are truly fascinating to say the least. If some folks have hearts full of race hatred, I must say that is their problem but we do not subscribe to such motivations.
Conclusion: You make the point that Jews do bad things but so does everyone else. Precisely! The point is made that all of us are made out of the same dirt. We do not present the issue as a "Jewish conspiracy" as you imply, but, whoever these individuals are, Jew or Gentile, they are surely pulling off one great scheme which is easily seen in reality and we get to read their little book about it. It should also be noted that no race of men, being Jewish or anyone else, should get preferential treatment. All men, Jew or gentile, should have their lies exposed to the light.
"I have just read your editorial 'The Big Act' and in the main, I am in agreement with your assessment of the manipulation that is being carried out regarding military intervention against Saddam. One thing troubles me about your article that I hope you will clarify. You reference the Protocols of the Elders of Zion without explaining where the Protocols originated. It is vital this is made clear because the Protocols have been the pretext for the most violent anti-Semitism the world has ever known. Hitler's propaganda of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy was at the heart of the holocaust and many in the White Supremacist groups are using the same racist propaganda based on the Protocols here in America today. The tone of other articles I have read on your web site do not indicate an anti-Semitic slant and I am hoping further clarification from you will bear this out."
Glory days are here again! Not that I'm complaining about the last few years. Some great events have made headlines. But, as the grim reaper, I'm not easily satisfied. And right now, I can hardly contain my excitement.
With prospects growing for high-tech weaponry to shatter a lot of bodies soon, I deeply appreciate the enthusiasm for such marvels in the American news media. The mood is auspicious for us to get comfortably numb, so that Iraqi people blown up by U.S. bombs won't seem like real people. Hooray!
To make matters better, reporters and pundits often act as though the bombs are aimed at just one person -- Saddam Hussein. When NBC's "Meet the Press" aired on Feb. 8, host Tim Russert was in step with questions like "What would an air attack on Saddam really accomplish?" and "Should the United States attack him with a massive attack from the air?"
And it's good that very little footage of the human suffering made it onto American TV screens. Sure, I'd personally enjoy watching the gore on television, but that might set off protests from the bleeding hearts.
I've been gratified to see the top names of journalism so fully on my team. For instance, when the war ended seven years ago, CBS anchor Dan Rather concluded an interview with a U.S. general by shaking his hand and exclaiming, "Congratulations on a job wonderfully done!"
The human destruction was a media footnote. So, after the war ended, U.S. News & World Report buried the death toll as a one-paragraph item: "Although top U.S. commanders last week estimated that Iraq suffered at least 100,000 military deaths during the war, other sources in the Gulf say the final total -- including civilian fatalities -- will be at least twice that. These sources say the allied aerial attacks inflicted far more casualties than previously thought."
Since then, sanctions against Iraq have taken several hundred thousand more lives. According to recent estimates from UNICEF, 4,500 Iraqi kids under 5 years old are dying every month, mostly due to the continuing sanctions. Somebody else's problem!
Happily, the news media haven't stopped applauding the use of the latest technology to kill Iraqis. President Clinton probably remembers the accolades he won in the early summer of 1993. Time magazine praised his announcement of a U.S. missile attack on Baghdad as "one of his finest moments."
Of course, there are always some moaners and whiners, like the White House panel that just warned against bombardment of Iraqi chemical sites. Releases of poison gas, even in small amounts, could have severe health consequences -- and the victims could include American soldiers as well as Iraqis. Hey, the more the merrier!
One of my favorite pastimes is observing the tortuous efforts to find legal justification for attacking Iraq. Although the U.N. Security Council now refuses to give approval, there are always reporters available to say that old Security Council resolutions gave a blank check for the United States to attack on its own say-so. When there's a will, there's a way.
I have fretted that some journalists might take it upon themselves to spread the vile contagion of conscience.
But not to worry! The specter of computer-guided missiles raining on Iraqi people seems to mesmerize America's media professionals. With few exceptions, they're too dazzled to make trouble.
This kind of glorified warfare against the defenseless provides a lot of secondary gains for me. It sets a fine example for callousness and tacit cruelty in all walks of life. If people are accustomed to hardening their hearts to random Iraqis -- a child in bed, say, or a family at the dinner table -- then extreme insensitivity can calcify and extend to others, seen and unseen, abroad and at home.
So, as the grim reaper, I'm very happy. After all, I hate life. Nothing gives me more joy than to see it extinguished. And, now more than ever, I love the American news media.
Thank you for opening my eyes to the conspiracy of the leaders, elected, supported and trusted. This government, originally chartered to secure God-given rights and the liberty of conscience, has become antagonistic to those principles and, therefore, to its only purpose for existence. America, isn't it high time to fire them?!
Though most Americans, as yet, are happy to continue as they are, in their labor camps, I'm done submitting to slavery/destruction. I'm done supporting, keeping alive a system that enslaves my kindred; done surrendering half my wages to despots who use my money to destroy me and my family, claiming to be my protectors. I am withholding obedience/my support to earthly powers because they have aligned themselves against truth and justice. I will obey God and to Him only will I bow my knee.
I am a witness to the TWA disaster. I too saw what was undeniably a missile PRIOR to the plane being in any trouble. Who is following up on this investigation? Who would I contact because I am so unhappy that the FBI is pretending we didn't see what we saw.
I have just discovered this web site and, like most of the other readers, feel very fortunate to have found it. I have for many years been unable to listen to the mainstream news, it was just so annoying and suggestive, to a painful level. And as a result, I never concerned myself with what was going on in the world. Whenever a political discussion would come up, usually over a beer, I would merely take on a confused stance on the issue and the conversation would go nowhere.
Until I met with a friend who knew much about what was going on, and he could actually answer my question of who "they" are. He saw an interest in my eyes, but could tell I was grossly misinformed about what was going on, even though my views seemed intact. He gave me the book The Shadows of Power which literally slapped me across the face and woke me up. I've been slightly obsessed with these issues ever since.
I may not be as informed as a lot of other people are out there, but I do realize that something has to be done NOW. And not just talk. I've been very frustrated not being able to meet with other people who hold our views, so we can actually organize and do something about it. To defeat the force we call "they", we must have some great minds pull off some amazing strategies and be just as secret about it as they are.
I understand your perplexity over the issue. To win this war one may not attack it with the weapons it uses. It is like a tar baby which only swallows those who attack it. If no one will attack it, "they" will create someone to attack. As "they" have said, if they did not have a Saddam, they would invent one. They will infiltrate organizations which are against them in order to incite them to violence. Then they can attack the organization which practices violence against them.
The only way to bring resolution is to withdraw from supporting it. Simply refuse to play. When enough people refuse to play, it stops. The only reason it continues and grows is because most Americans care more for their comforts than for truth. They will feed the beast rather than lose some of their toys, houses and lands. If their lives are threatened, they reconsider their conscientious objections.
I have never been in the military but I am an RN and for the last 17 years have studied homeopathy which is a natural complete system of healing totally opposite to the way that regular allopathic medicine functions.
Also, over the last 10 years I started to be aware of the many dangers of vaccines and now refuse to get any for myself - haven't had anything since early 70's. I teach workshops on this and have spent a lot of time on the net and on e-mail lists with parents and others sharing this information. I also get quite a few phone calls from around the country.
After I started hearing about the illnesses following the Gulf War, I started to look at this. When the Anthrax Vaccination issue came up last month, I decided I needed to find out what was going on in the veteran and military community and learn more and share what I know.
Also, this makes me SO angry. Yes, it appears that vaccines are what is coming up over and over and no straight answers with GWI or with all the other things children and adults experience after getting vaccine - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Autism, Attention Deficit Syndrome, Colitis and all the Immune System and Connective Tissue Diseases we have now (so similar to what all of you with GWI have).
No one questions the vaccine sacred cow. They have been VERY successful with the propaganda which I am convinced is about making money and very possibly population control. It makes me ill to think of it. The media is so complicit in this.
The vaccine issue is a difficult one as there are no 'scientific' studies proving they are dangerous - because none have been done. The only ones who can afford these studies are the drug companies and do you think they'll do such a study? Not! All we have are people's stories/experiences and a few scientific types who are questioning and point out problems. The problem is proving it - same as with GWI. I don't know if it will ever happen. It will take people just standing up for themselves and refusing to buy into the propaganda.
Thank you for all the work that you are doing
to get this information out and I am so sad that it takes such
Just found your site and think it is great. I just read the article on the IRS and had a comment...
There is competent scholarship to support the contention that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never properly ratified by the required number of states, and some of the other arguments used by tax protesters also have merit. Unfortunately, they are irrelevant. There is a legal maxim that "specificities in evidence supersede generalities in evidence." We all are supposed to have some general protections and rights under the Constitution, such as freedom of speech. However, if I am hired by a client and sign an agreement not to reveal his confidential information, I cannot later publish it and claim my First Amendment right of freedom of speech. My general right to freedom of speech was superseded by my specific contractual agreement not to publish this information.
When you open a bank account, you usually sign an agreement which includes some seemingly innocuous clause that you will abide by the rules of the bank. If you read all the fine print, you will find that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury.
When new federal judges are confirmed, they are told how to manage "Tax Protester" trials -- violations of Title 26. Federal judges have been instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 (Davis vs. Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275) that banks are instrumentalities of the Congress. In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the state. So, as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship or a credit relationship with a bank, such as checking, savings, charge cards, loans, mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the state.
During Willful Failure to File trials the IRS surveys the local banks in the vicinity of the tax protester and obtains copies of his signature card. During the prosecution the federal judge is sitting up there on the bench with that agreement with the state in front of him while the tax protester cites his constitutional rights.
The judge will ignore all constitutionally related arguments. He is operating on the penal clause to a civil contract. Since there is an agreement to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress? A contract does not have to be enacted by Congress in order to make it enforceable.
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." Another legal maxim is that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." Until we have separation of banking and state, we will not have the choice to avoid this "invisible contract" and we will not have justice.
"Winds" is fast becoming my web site of choice. Each article seems to have my core understandings within them. The editorial on the "last war" hit the nail on the head. What will "they" say when Israel goes down the tubes? As you stated, the whole world is trying to fulfill "their" version of what the prophets spoke. Everyone wants to be the "chosen", doing the will of God .
A close friend of mine, against my advice, joined the army and was sent to the Desert Storm theater where he was sworn to secrecy concerning the experimental anthrax shots. He has been sick ever since.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This site is in the public domain.