Welcome to Thetruthnews.info

The New World Disorder
Contributed by:
Ed Deak

London stock trader urges move to 'amero'
Says many unaware of plan to replace dollar with N. American currency

Posted: November 28, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

In an interview with CNBC, a vice president for a prominent London
investment firm yesterday urged a move away from the dollar to the "amero,"
a coming North American currency, he said, that "will have a big impact on
everybody's life, in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico."

Steve Previs, a vice president at Jefferies International Ltd., explained
the Amero "is the proposed new currency for the North American Community
which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico."

The aim, he said, according to a transcript provided by CNBC to WND, is to
make a "borderless community, much like the European Union, with the U.S.
dollar, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso being replaced by the

Previs told the television audience many Canadians are "upset" about the
amero. Most Americans outside of Texas largely are unaware of the amero or
the plans to integrate North America, Previs observed, claiming many are
just "putting their head in the sand" over the plans.

CNBC asked Previs whether he thought NAFTA was "working and doing enough."

He replied: "Until it created a lot of illegal immigrants coming across the
border. I don't know. You get the pros and cons on NAFTA. For some people
it is a good thing, and for other people it has been a disaster."

The speculation on the future of a new North American currency came amid a
major U.S. dollar sell-off worldwide that began last week.


Sean Penn Speaks Out for Impeachment     

  Sean Penn received The 2006 Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award from The Creative Coalition on December 18, 2006, in New York City, where he delivered the following speech.]
The Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award. For the purposes of tonight and my own personal enjoyment, I'm going to yield to the notion that I deserve this.
And in the spirit of that, tell you that I am very honored to receive it. And for this I thank the Creative Coalition and my friend Charlie Rose. It does seem appropriate to take this opportunity to exercise the right that honors us all - freedom of speech.
Note for later:
The original title for the Louis XVI comedy called "Start The Revolution Without Me" was one of my favorites. That original title was "Louis, There's a Crowd Downstairs." But I'll come back to that...
Words may be our most civil weapons of change, when they connect to actions of sacrifice, or good will, but they have no grace or power without bold clarity. So, if you'll bear with me, borrowing a line from Bob Dylan, "Let us not talk falsely now - the hour is getting late."
Global warming
Massive pollution
Non-stop U.S. war in Iraq
Attacks on civil liberties under the banner of war on terror
Military spending
You and I, U.S. taxpayers, spend 1 1/2 billion dollars on an Iraq-war-'focused' military everyday, while social needs cry out.
Health care
Public transit
Environmental protections
Affordable housing
Job training
Public investment
And, levy building.
We depend largely for information on these issues from media industries, driven by the bottom line to such an extent that the public interest becomes uninteresting.
And should we speak truth, we stand against government efforts to intimidate or legislate in the service of censorship. Whether under the guise of a Patriot Act or any other benevolent-sounding rationale for the age-old game of shutting down dissent by discouraging independent thinking and preventing progressive social change.
The most effective forms of de facto censorship are pre-emptive. Systemically, we are encouraged to keep our heads down, out of the line of fire - to avoid the danger, god forbid, that someone in the White House, on Capitol Hill, or a media blow-hard might take a shot at us.
But, as a practical matter, most of the limits on creative expression and other forms of free speech come from self-censorship, where the mechanism of corporate clout offers carrots and brandishes sticks. We avoid a conflict before the conflict materializes. We reach for the carrots and stay out of range of sticks.
Decades ago, Fred Friendly called it a "positive veto" - corporations putting big money behind shows that they want to establish and perpetuate. Whether in journalism or drama, creative efforts that don't gain a financial "positive veto" are dismissible, then dismissed. We may not call that "censorship." But whatever we call it, the effects of a "positive veto" system are severe. They impose practical limits on efforts to bring the most important realities to public attention sooner rather than later...
We're beginning to see more revealing images of this war. But it's later now, isn't it? What we have to pay attention to are the results of these "practical limits." One, is that wars become much easier to launch than to halt.
I've got a feeling about how we can begin to change this process and I want to pass it by you. Children grow up in our country -- many by the way, under conditions of extreme poverty -- and are told from a very early age "You will be accountable!" "With freedom, comes responsibility!" And so the lecture goes...Democratic and Republican alike. Lie-cheat-steal, and there will be consequences! Theft will be punished. Actions that cause the deaths of others will be severely punished. The message, from leaders in Washington, news media, mom, dad, and church is clear. Criminals MUST be held accountable.
Now, there's been a lot of talk lately on Capitol Hill about how impeachment should be "off the table." We're told that it's time to look ahead - not back...
Can you imagine how far that argument would go for the defense at an arraignment on charges of grand larceny, or large-scale distribution of methamphetamines? How about the arranging of a contract killing on a pregnant mother? "Indictment should be off the table." Or "Let's look forward, not backward." Or "We can't afford another failed defendant."
Our country has a legal system, not of men and women, but of laws. Why then are we so willing to put inconvenient provisions of the U.S. constitution and federal law "off the table?" Our greatest concern right now should be what to put ON the table. Unless we're going to have one set of laws for the powerful and another set for those who can't afford fancy lawyers, then truth matters to everyone. And accountability is a matter of human and legal principle. If we're going to continue wagging our fingers at the disadvantaged transgressors, then I suggest we be consistent. If truth and accountability can be stretched into sham concepts, we may as well open the gates of all our jails and prisons, where, by the way, there are more people behind bars than any other country in the world. One in every 32 American adults is behind bars, on probation, or on parole as we stand here tonight.
Which is to say that, globally, the United States is number one at demanding accountability and backing up that demand with imprisonment. But, when it comes to our president, vice president, secretary of state, former secretary of defense...this insistence on accountability vanishes. All of a sudden, what's past is prologue. And we're just "forward-looking." But some people can't just look forward. Men and women stationed in Iraq at this moment, under orders of a Commander-in-Chief so sufficiently practiced in the art of deception, that he got vast numbers of American journalists and the most esteemed media outlets of this country, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and PBS to eagerly serve his agenda-building for war. And the process also induced vast numbers of artists and performers (probably even some in this room tonight) to keep quiet and facilitate the push for an invasion in Iraq.
I'm sure many people who I met in Baghdad, both in my trips prior to and during the occupation, now similarly cannot just look forward. With lives so entirely shattered by a violence of occupation - an ongoing U.S. war effort and the civil war that it has catalyzed. All on the back of a crumbled infrastructure, following eleven years of devastating U.N. sanctions.
And, where is the accountability on behalf of the American dead and wounded, their families, their friends, and the people of the United States who have seen their country become a world pariah. These events have been enabled by people named Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice, as they continue to perpetuate a massive fraud on American democracy and decency.
On January 11, 2003, I made an appearance on Larry King's show following my first trip to Iraq. I suggested that every American mother and father sit down with a scrap of paper and pencil and scribble the following words: Dear Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so -- We regret to inform you that your son or daughter so-and-so, was killed in action in Iraq. I then asked that those mothers and fathers complete that letter in whatever way might comfort them should they receive it. When one considers what a bewildered continuation of those words a parent might attempt to write today, it seems inconceivable that this country could've ever bought into this war. Who were those mothers and fathers believing in?! We know it's not the administration alone, but a culture at large, cloaking itself in self-righteousness, religion, and adolescent hero-dreaming machismo. Would they have believed Rush Limbaugh if they'd known he was high as a kite on OxyContin? Would they have believed the factually impaired Bill O'Reilly if they knew he was massaging his rectum with a loofah while telephonically harassing a staffer? Hannity, had they known he was simply a whore to the cause of his pimps - Murdoch and Ailes? Or the little bow-tie putz, if they knew all he was seeking was a good laugh from Jon Stewart? Maybe our countrymen and women were listening to Ted Haggert while he was whiffing meth and boning a muscle-headed gigolo? Or Mark Foley seeking junior weenis? Joe Lieberman, sitting Shiva? And Toby Keith, singing about how big his boots are?
"Oh, there goes Sean...he had to go and name-call. They say he can't help himself." Or, did I name-call? Maybe I just quickly summed up 7 or 8 little truths. Oh, no, you're right - I name-called. I said, "putz". I take it back. Or, do I? Did I say "whore?" Pimp? These are questions. But, the real and great questions of conscience and accountability would not loom so ominously -- unanswered or evaded at such tremendous cost -- without our day-to-day failure to insist on genuine accountability. Of course we'd prefer some easy ways to get there. But no easy ways exist. Not a new Congress. Not Barack Obama. And, not John McCain. His courage in North Vietnamese prison makes him a heroic man. His voting record in Congress makes him a damaging public servant. We have gotta stand the fuck up and show the world how powerful are the people in a democracy. That's how we regain our position of example, rather than pariah, to the world at large. And that is how we can begin to put up our chins and allow pride and unification to raise our own quality of life and security.
They tell us we lost 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Is that enough? We're about to match it. We're within weeks, if not less, of killing 3,000 Americans in Iraq. I ask Speaker Pelosi, can we put impeachment on the table then? Without former FEMA chief Mike Brown being held accountable, post Katrina (scapegoat though he may have been) we'd have had the same chaos and neglect when Rita hit Houston. Think about it. And, the same people who trumpet deterrence as a justification for punishment when we speak of "crime and punishment," will boast their positive thinking when dismissing the deterrent qualities of an impeachment proceeding.
What is impeachment? It's not a Democratic versus Republican event. Not if used responsibly. If the House of Representatives votes to impeach this president, is he thrown out of office? No, he is not thrown out of office. That is not what impeachment is. Impeachment is the opportunity to proceed with accountability and give our elected senators, democratic and republican, the power to pursue a thorough investigation. The power to put the truth on the table. Mothers and fathers are losing their kids to horrifying deaths in this war every single day. Horrible deaths. Horrible maimings. Were crimes committed in enlisting the support of our country in this decision to go to war? For the moment we're living the most spineless of scenarios; where the hawks abused impeachment eight years ago, now, the rest of us politely refuse to use it today. Let's give the whistle-blowers cover, let's get the subpoenas out there, and then, one by one, put this administration under oath. And then, if the crimes of "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are proven, do as Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides, and remove "the President, Vice President and...civil officers of the United States" from office. If the Justice Department then sees fit to bunk them up with Jeff Skilling, so be it.
So...look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a blowjob, yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a cum-stain on the flag we wave. You know, I was listening to Frank Rich this morning, speaking on a book tour. He said he thought impeachment proceedings would amount to a "decadent" sidetrack, while our soldiers were still being killed. I admire Frank Rich. And of course he would be right if impeachment is all we do. But we're Americans. We can do two things at the same time. Yes, let's move forward and swiftly get out of this war in Iraq AND impeach these bastards.
Christopher Reeve promised to get out of that chair. Well, I don't know about you, but it feels like he's up now and I wouldn't be standing here if it weren't on his shoulders. Let it be for something.
Georgie, there's a crowd downstairs.
Thank you and good night.  

Are Bush and Cheney Planning an Early Attack on Iran?

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Back on October 9, I wrote in The Nation that it looked like the Bush-Cheney gang, worried about the November election, was gearing up for an unprovoked attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Eisenhower being ordered to depart a month early from Norfolk, VA to join the already-on-station USS Enterprise. That article was based on reports from angry sailors based on the Eisenhower who had leaked word of their mission.

There was, thankfully, no attack on Iran before Election Day, but it is starting to look like I may have been right about the plan after all, but wrong about the timing.

As the threat of a catastrophic US election-eve attack on Iran started to look increasingly likely, reports began to trickle out of the Pentagon that the generals and admirals were protesting. They knew that the US military is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a war with Iran would be a disaster of historic proportions. To bolster their blocking efforts, the Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican fixer and former Secretary of State (under Bush Pere) James Baker, which had been slated to release its report on what to do about Iraq in January, 2007, pushed forward its report. Baker, together with co-chair Lee Hamilton, went prematurely public with the group's conclusion that the Iraq war was a failure, and that the US should be trying to negotiate with Iran, not attack that country.

That joint effort appeared to have blocked Bush and Cheney's war plan, but the reprieve may have only been temporary.

It now appears that the idea of attacking Iran is again moving forward. The Eisenhower strike force, armed with some 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as a fleet of strike aircraft, and already on station in the Arabian Sea for over a month and a half, has moved into the Persian Gulf. A second carrier group, led by the USS Stennis, is steaming toward the Gulf, too. Already in position are three expeditionary strike groups and an amphibious warship, all suitable for landing Marines on Iranian beaches. On December 20, the New York Times, citing Pentagon sources, reported that both Britain and the U.S. are moving additional naval forces into the region "in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country." (We've all seen what "displays of force" by the Bush administration actually turn out to be.)

The idea of hitting Iran may make sense from the Bush-Cheney bunker, where the only consideration is not what's good for the country, but what's good for Bush and Cheney. After all, if you're losing your war in Iraq, and if you have hit bottom politically at home (Bush's ppublic support ratings are now down in the 20s, where Nixon's were just before his resignation, and Cheney's numbers have been in the teens for months), and if the public is clamoring for an end to it all--and maybe for your heads, too--expanding the conflict and putting the nation on a full war footing can look like an attractive even if desperate gambit.

From the nation's point of view, of course, an attack on Iran would be an unmitigated disaster. There are no more troops that the U.S. could throw into battle (the Pentagon is scrambling just to find another 20,000 or so bodies that Bush wants to throw into the Iraq quagmire), so an attack would have to be basically that--an attack.

Certainly the forces the Navy is assembling in the Persian Gulf, together with the B-52s and B-1s and B-2s available at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and at bases in other countries in the region, are capable of destroying most of Iran's nuclear facilities, as well as its military infrastructure. But in terms of conquering territory, the most the U.S. could hope to do would be to perhaps hold a beachhead on the Straits of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf links to the Arabian Sea. And even that would be a bloody challenge.

There is no way the U.S. could hope to conquer Iran.

Nor would the Iranian people rise up and overthrow their theocratic leaders--the same neoconservative fantasy that Bush war-mongers promised ahead of the Iraq invasion, and which they are re-cycling now to justify an attack on Iran. In fact, an attack on Iran, far from sparking a rebellion against the government there, would crush the new wave of reform that was evidenced in last week's local elections in Iran, which dealt a blow to the country's hardliners. Iran is a proud nation with a history reaching back thousands of years. If attacked, its people can be counted on to rally around their current rulers, and its war-hardened soldiers can be counted on to fight to the death to defend their country.

Moreover, while its military may be no match for America's, Iran has many asymmetrical options for retaliation. As the key player in Iraq, with close links to Iraq's Shia factions, Iran's military has trained and armed the Badr Brigades--the largest and best-armed faction in Iraq, and one which to date has stayed out of the fighting against US forces. Iran is also close to the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr, and could unleash his fanatical troops too, against US forces in Iraq. If this happens, count on American casualty rates leaping to or even surpassing Korea or Vietnam-era levels overnight.

Additionally, Iraq's intelligence services have connections with Shia groups in Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, and can be expected to quickly organize cells to strike at economic and US military targets there.

More seriously, of course, an attack on Iran will jack the price of oil to levels never seen before. Even if the US managed to militarily control the Straits of Hormuz, Iran's hundreds of stockpiled anti-ship missiles, which are buried in bunkers all along the Persian Gulf, would cause insurance rates to soar so high that no tanker could afford to sail that route, effectively cutting off over one quarter of the world's oil supply. Virtually all of the oil produced in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the Arab Emirates would be trapped in the ground. As well, the network of pipelines that bring oil from wellheads to refineries and to storage and pier facilities would be virtually indefensible against Iran-inspired sapper attacks.

Oil industry analysts have talked of oil leaping in price to $200 a barrel or more in the event of a US war with Iran, and given how panicked this country got when oil reached $80 a barrel recently, there's no need to go into detail explaining what $200/barrel oil would do to the U.S. economy--or to the global economy.

Of course, the biggest issue is that attacking Iran would be yet another war crime by this craven administration. No one can argue that Iran poses an imminent threat to anyone, least of all to the U.S.--the only legitimate grounds under the U.N. Charter and the Nuremburg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, for initiating a war. Attacking a country that poses no such threat is defined as the most heinous of war crimes: a Crime Against Peace.

If Bush and Cheney perpetrate this crime, the Congress should initiate immediate impeachment proceedings and should simultaneously pass legislation terminating funding for the war. The important thing now is for the American people to register their opposition to this war before it happens. Call your senators and your representative and let them know you don't want it to happen, and you want impeachment if it does. And add your name to the petition against war. Also mark down January 27 in your calendar, for the big march and rally against war and for impeachment in Washington, D.C. (to be followed by two days of lobbying Congress on Jan. 28-29.

Finally, send this story to everyone you know, and urge them to do the same. At this point, with Democrats still cowering in their offices, only the American people can stop this madness.

Why Don't We Mind Our Own Business?
By John F. McManus 
Published: 2006-12-22 15:29

As the number of fatalities in Iraq inches toward the 3,000 mark, it's obvious that the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war as well, haven't produced anything near what could be called victory.

The larger consideration needing thorough review is why does our nation have a military force in the first place. The only reasonable answer is that it exists to protect the lives, liberty and property of those who pay for it: the citizens of our nation. Yet, American forces are stationed all across the globe, not to accomplish the goal just mentioned, but to act as the world's policemen. 

Beyond trying to separate Sunnis from Shiites in Iraq and Taliban from Afghanis in their country, America's commitments include defending South Korea from North Korea, Central and Eastern Europe from possible attack by anyone, Israel from Arab militants, several Arab states from Iran, even Taiwan and Japan from China. American forces are actually stationed in more than two-thirds of the world's nations. How this can be capably accomplished with a "broken" army – not to mention an over-committed Marine Corps - doesn't seem to be on the minds of President Bush and other U.S. leaders. Whether it should even be tried seems never to be considered.

The time has come for the U.S. to cease acting like a nation busily building its own empire. Therefore, the time has come to revert to the single goal of using our military to protect the lives, liberty and property of Americans – and only Americans. It would be wonderful if Calvin Coolidge's summation of his own presidency could be adopted by Congress and the President. The generally overlooked and sometimes unfairly maligned Coolidge said toward the end of his years in the White House (1923-1929): "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." 

It would indeed be beneficial if such an attitude could sweep through Washington. But it would have to sweep through the nation first because our congressional leaders are mostly followers whose main goal in the office they hold is to stay there. A look at what is happening to America – both abroad and at home- suggests that the time for minding our own business is very much at hand.


Press Release Source: Organic Valley

Organic Valley Blasts F.D.A. Support for Animal Cloning; Warns People are not Guinea Pigs
Friday October 31, 7:46 am ET

LAFARGE, Wisc., Oct. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Today's statement of support for animal cloning by the F.D.A. was swiftly condemned by Organic Valley, one of the nation's foremost organic brands and the only one to be 100 percent farmer owned.

"By allowing foods from cloned animals into the food system without proof of their long-term effects on human, animal and environmental health, the F.D.A. is not protecting the consumer. The F.D.A. is furthering their support of the abhorrent attempt by corporate interests to control the genes of our citizenry," warned George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley.

"American families should not be guinea pigs for corporate greed! Contrary to what the F.D.A. says, there is no level of 'acceptable risk' when it comes to putting unproven science on the table for dinner," said Siemon, in reference to the F.D.A.'s pro-cloning rationale.

Siemon noted that once man-made species are introduced into the environment there is no "calling them back." He explained: "Whether it's genetically engineered crops cross pollinating with wild weeds, genetically modified salmon breeding with wild fish, or future concerns with clone mammals, the risks to the balance in ecosystems worldwide are great."

Consumers Need Animal Cloning Warning Labels

According to the F.D.A., products from cloned animals, like products that have been genetically engineered, do not need to carry a warning label on the package.

"Citizens deserve the right to know what is in their food and how it has been produced," said Siemon. "At least if the product is labeled as being from cloned animals, consumers can have a choice."

The only way consumers will be able to be sure that the foods they purchase have been made without genetically modified ingredients or cloned animals is by buying organic. The stringent standards for organic forbid such practices.

"The U.S. needs to use the precautionary principle followed in Europe where prevention is the goal. We need to work with Nature, not try to fool her," said Siemon.

Siemon urged consumers to contact their Congressional representatives to ask them to demand that the F.D.A. rescind its support for animal cloning. The F.D.A. is scheduled to hold a public meeting on animal cloning during the first week in November.

About the Organic Valley Cooperative

Founded in 1988, Organic Valley today is made up of 577 farms in 17 states. Enjoying record success, the cooperative in the last year added 15,000 acres, 3,810 cows and more than 121 farmers into the organic system. Its farmer pay price was nearly double that paid to conventional farmers and the co-op realized its best sales ever, $125 million.

Stewards of the earth who use nature as their teachers, Organic Valley farmers produce more than 130 delicious organic foods, including milk, cheese, butter, spreads, creams, eggs, produce, juice, and meat. They're available in supermarkets, natural foods stores and food-co-ops nationwide. For further information contact Organic Valley, 507 West Main Street, LaFarge WI 54639, tel. (608) 625-2602, or visit www.organicvalley.com.

Source: Organic Valley

US agency approves cloned animal meat


AdvertisementMilk and meat from some cloned animals are safe to eat, the US Food and Drug Administration said in a draft ruling that brings the controversial technology closer to American grocery carts.

If given final approval, the ruling would allow for the sale of food made from cloned cattle, pigs and goats, but not sheep, in the United States for the first time.

The agency said it would be unlikely to recommend special labels for food made from clones, which are genetic twins of donor animals, but would not decide on the labelling issue until it collects comments from the public over the next 90 days.

"No unique risks for human food consumption were identified in cattle, swine or goat clones," it said.

The FDA did not have enough evidence to give the same assurance on sheep clones, but it did vouch for food made from clones' offspring, which many believe would account for most of the clone-related food making its way onto dinner tables.

Making clones of animals works by taking cells from an adult and fusing them with other cells before implanting them in a surrogate mother. A relatively small amount of cloned livestock now exists in the United States.

The FDA stressed it will maintain its current moratorium on the food until a final ruling is issued.

"This does not end the agency's review of cloning. We view this as the beginning of the agency's interaction with the public on this issue," Stephen Sundlof, an FDA veterinarian, said in a conference call with reporters.

Comments will be accepted until April 2 but there was no word on when a final ruling would be made.

Advocates of livestock cloning hope the technology will help produce more milk and lean, tender meat by creating more disease-resistant animals. They insist it is perfectly safe and hope shoppers will believe that as they learn more.

But some consumer and religious groups strongly oppose the idea, arguing that scientists do not know enough about the effects of cloning on nutrition or biology. They also want more time for public debate on the ethics of cloning.

The issue could make waves for exporters of US farm goods, who have run into problems when prohibited genetically engineered crops made their way into the food supply.

Opinion polls suggest shoppers would be wary. More than half of consumers in a recent survey by the International Food Information Council said they were unlikely to buy food made from cloned animals, no matter what the government says.

"It's important that FDA is the barometer for making decisions on the basis of safety, health and nutrition," said Dave Schmidt, the council's president. "Then it's essentially how the marketplace will react."

While affected industries welcomed government reassurances about food safety, they remain keenly aware that supermarket decisions of consumers keep them in business.

"FDA should be cautious about allowing meat and milk from cloned animals to be introduced into the marketplace if most consumers are unwilling to accept the technology," the American Meat Institute said in a statement.

Cost is another factor.

"Cloning, I would think, would be too expensive for it to compete in the mainstream marketplace," said Len Steiner, owner of Steiner Consulting Group, a food industry consultancy.

Groups like the Consumer Federation of America called the FDA's step premature, saying it has not sufficiently vetted the technology's safety or ethical and religious issues.

"All those concerns are really being swept under the rug," said Joe Mendelson, legal director at the Centre for Food Safety, which opposes some biotechnology.