Image [found here]. Disclaimer, this blogger knows nothing about this source, good or bad.
Probably not since the Great Depression, have so many Americans considered alternatives to America. Where could those of us who are looking around go, if we want to be somewhere where the US Constitution applies more out elsewhere, than here in the US? The global corporate bankster elite have tuned the US Government to be parasitic on the American taxpayer, independent minds, and especially the self-employed and small business owners.
We the people don't want to pay for all out wars of aggression. We the people want to have a life. Whether or not you leave, to threaten to vote with your back is a powerful weapon. Use it. Speak out, be heard, consider the alternatives to being a slave to the corporate bankster elite.
The below video contains subject matter, we in the potential, and actual, American Ex-Pat Movement are concerned about.
Cynthia McKinney tells RT America that the US needs to take care of domestic issues. The financial debt debate has many wondering what is going on with the US financial situation. Many are demanding that the US stop spending on the wars and bring that revenue home to help with domestic issues. Does it make senses to spend billions of dollars on our defense when we are so close to default? Cynthia McKinney, former US Representative and target of O' Reilly, tells us what's really going on.
No wonder international criminals like Hillary Clinton don't like what is reported on RT America.
If I were to advise the Chinese about who they are lending money to, I would tell them to cut the criminals off.
My nightmare in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, at least proof to me that the American Dream is a nightmare, my eyes are open to see who is really running the US. Heroin and cocaine running corporate bankster CIA type scumbags like George H. W. Bush are the manipulators behind the scenes to make the offshore corporate bankers richer. It is a criminal empire of prostitutes and vermin. The corporate criminals are out to use their army of criminal parasites to ruin independent small business, taxpayers, and families using tax dollars. The lawyer/judge mafia is a corporate bankster ally. They are using tax dollars to shrink the tax base. Do the math, this can't go on forever.
Tax dollars are used to pay insiders in government 6 figures to take away children from good families, collapse the economy allowing lawyers to take about 70 percent of wealth, on average in divorces where three quarters of marriages end in divorce. Police celebrate false arrests with their "100 Club", ruining citizens, lying, committing perjury, and filing bogus police reports. [Connecticut State Police 100 Club]
I advise the Chinese in charge of the US Debt, cut your losses, these criminals are ripping off the American public, they're ripping you off, and they eventually borrow enough that they absolutely will not pay you back. They are a bunch of lying whores like Elliot Spitzer.
The alleged dream of the Global Criminal Elite is to kill off as many of us as they can, after we are enslaved and completely ripped off. They'd like to live on an island in Greece, like one George H. W. Bush and his war profiteer friends, allegedly are using their war and drug running money to build up. [Limnos or Lemnos] A nuclear aircraft carrier or submarine could supply all the power needed for wherever they choose to live out their lives, having profited off the blood of others. [link] [link]
Another Skull and Bones and/or New World Order conspiracy theory involves a dome cavern under a body of water which originally was a huge salt deposit, could be a mini city, sealed off from the rest of the world where non-corporate genetically altered crops could be grown. Monsanto would not be poising them. That domed city could also power the elite's little paradise. I don't believe this one is even possible, but sometimes reality really is stranger than fiction.
Trillions of dollars have been stolen. Who knows what these criminals are really up to with their loot?
I believe criminals will continue to commit crimes unless jailed or killed ...
The countdown to armadebtdon carries on and we are just 3 days away from the debt ceiling deadline. If a discussion is not reached will the US lose its AAA rating? The problem is we are not taking in enough revenue to continue spending like we are. Max Keiser of Keiser Report gives us his insight on what that means to the US. Follow Lucy on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LucyKafanov
* * * *
P.S. if you are reading this and know anyone who would pass this message to anyone at the Chinese Embassy, or in China who decides financial policy, please do. Click on White Envelope below to share this post with a friend by email.
[click here] for my previous letter to them, and pictures of me.
What would I do to reduce the debt, and continue the business of governing the United States of America?
I'd cut back the spending on the military, wars, and illegal occupation of the world by at least half, cutting back in tenths at a time, over time. I'd abolish the TSA, DHS Homeland Security, and fire all the corrupt judges, all of them, in all states and federally. I think then, and only then, we the people could actually get some representation for our taxation. The TSA and DHS can become the government, the Constitution null and void, and US Senators and Congresspeople merely a puppet show if they aren't stopped soon.
Police can declare Martial Law and the Patriot Act should be repealed, as police should not declare themselves the government, confiscate guns, and abolish free speech as they have in an Arizon town. [story and video]
Federal and State Officials are steering contracts to friends and organized crime to build, run, and supply prisons, to officially kidnap children, and to abuse the public in a Police State, using tax dollars to pay out 6 figure salaries to insiders, and cops like scumbag Connecticut State Police Officer Sam Izzarelli. Maybe 70 percent on average of wealth, on average, is lost in divorce and about 75 percent of marriage fail. That is proof, alone, of rampant judicial abuse. Judicial abuse harms children, families, small business, and the economy.
I, Steven G. Erickson, was told I could receive a civic award for my contributions to improve life in downtown Stafford Springs, Connecticut, or get prison, lose my daughter, property, and contracting business if I didn't continue date Barbara Sattal who Connecticut State Police had designated to set me up for false arrest as a secret police domestic spy program was to ruin small business owners, investment property owners, and the outspoken who were not organized crime connected. [story] I ask that my elected officials look into this. Former Congressman Chris Shays agreed to look into my case, and that of others who were allegedly placed on the Connecticut Secret Police Arrest on Sight Enemies List if he was re-elected.
He agreed to have a Congressional/Senate Hearing where I could testify.
Government should not block investigations into insiders, officials, police, and members of the judiciary. Judges and officials, such as Barack Obama, should be subject to the same laws the rest of us are, and the same punishments.
It is time to stand up, or welcome to Obama Camp, Comrade.
-stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com
Ron Paul "Nobody Wants To Admit The Real Problem & That Is We're Bankrupt!"
Image of US Military Police [found here], click on image for full size.
It is in no way American to have military police out arresting civilians, out and about, in the US. The military was never intended for domestic law enforcement. Hunting, and killing, civilians on Obama's hit list is a real possibility. Military detention, interrogation, and torture seems to be the new reality in the United States of America. Why are taxpayers funding their own abuse? Why is the US becoming the new Soviet Union as far as being corrupt, abusive, and not representing the will of the people?
Checkpoints, the TSA, and Homeland Security lock down of the entire country seems eminent. The Martial Law slow takeover has begun before the Patriot Act was even passed. Blame the offshore bankers, and blame the lawyer mafia who sold their soles, and now want to sell yours, along with everything else that used to be yours.
Even if you can't stand Alex Jones, please listen to what is presented in the below video.
-stevengerickson At Yahoo Dot Com
Busting Posse Comitatus: Military Cops Arrest Civilians in Florida City! - Alex Jones Tv
In Homestead, Florida, Posse Comitatus is dead. The Air Force now responds to civilian crime in the small city, population around 30,000.
Military "crime stoppers" violate Posse Comitatus in Florida. Photo from Homestead ARB website."Here at Homestead Air Reserve Base we have the Crime Stop hotline that allows anyone either on base or off the installation to anonymously report a crime," explains the Homestead Air Reserve Base website. "If you know of a crime that has been committed, if you see a crime in progress, or if you see a suspicious person, vehicle, or situation that makes you feel a crime may be occurring, call the Security Forces Crime Stop Hotline..."
On July 15, military police -- known as Security Forces patrolmen -- detained a criminal suspect at a Circle K in until Miami-Dade police arrived.
"Crime prevention is everyone's responsibility, the better informed we are the safer we can make the installation and the surrounding community," said t. Juan Lemus, Security Forces Police Services Chief.
Crime prevention off military bases is the responsibility of civilian police, not the military. In 1878, following Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed. It limited the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Infowars.com has reported numerous violations of Posse Comitatus since September 11, 2001.
In 2009, the National Guard provided "security" in Kingman, Arizona. The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is now exempt from the Act.
The military participated in a checkpoint along with Tennessee cops and Homeland Security in April of 2009. The governor and state representatives were not aware of the illegal collaboration when contacted by the Alex Jones Show.
In 2008, the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center and the California Highway Patrol used the Christmas holiday as an excuse to collaborate on a drunk driving checkpoint in San Bernardino County.
Following a shooting in Alabama, the Army was dispatched from Fort Rucker to patrol the streets of Samson in 2009.
Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl called in the National guard to help in "domestic" disputes in 2009. Ravenstahl used a snow emergency as an excuse. He went on television and said "be advised that you will begin to see National Guard Humvees in some of your neighborhoods beginning this evening."
The above represents just a small sampling of the military violating Posse Comitatus. The Act was violated in earnest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The devastating storm proved to be a beta test for military violations of the law.
Police declare themselves the new government, declaring Martial Law in Arizona town. Complain and get arrested. Police are out to confiscate guns if they don't like the looks you give a Police State official. The budget is secret and police do what they want with your money. It is the new America. Citizens are to be used and serve the police in charge, or else. Jennifer Jones is a rising star in the independent citizen movement for representative government, this blogger's take on it ...
Quartzsite, AZ Mayor Ed Foster: Selective Enforcement by Gestapo Police Chief! - Alex Jones Tv 1/2
Despite collecting more than enough signatures to get a ban on circumcision be put on the November ballot, a group in San Franciso was defeated today when their measure, "The San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation Act" was shot down in San Francisco Superior Court.
Bullet Catchers/Bomb Absorbers needed for Corporate Bankster Military
I received the below from "anonymous" by email and re-posted it, in its entirety, cut and pasted, out of my email. stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com
Why do we let this continue? This is our country!! Let’s get this message out there and let the powers that be, know we mean business!!! Everyone should live by the SAME rules and standards!!
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.
Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?
35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
* * * * * * * *
Paul Craig Roberts: The Political Theater and The Debt Ceiling Crisis 1/2
In my last column I suggested that an unintended outcome of the debt ceiling impasse could be Congress' loss of the power of the purse. In this column I suggest an intended outcome that the ongoing political theater might be designed to produce.
President Obama has said that he will not resort to the various powers open to him to keep the government running should Congress fail to deliver a debt ceiling increase. This is a suspicious statement, as it is not credible that a president would leave troops at war unpaid and without supplies, Social Security checks unsent and stand aside while the US dollar collapses and the credit rating of the US government is destroyed.
There are national security directives and executive orders already on the books, as well as the 14th Amendment, that Obama can invoke to set aside the debt ceiling. Congress would sigh with relief that Obama had prevented the lawmakers from destroying the country.
So what might be going on?
One possibility is that the political theater is operating to bring about otherwise politically impossible cuts in the social safety net. If the drama continues to the absolute deadline without a deal, Obama, who perhaps favors cutting the safety net as much as do the Republicans, would have to accept the Republican package in order that the troops are not cut off from supplies, Social Security checks can continue to go out, and the dollar be saved. Having opposed the Republicans to the last minute, Obama can say that he had no other recourse.
What American wants the troops deserted on the field of battle and the elderly without groceries? Who other than the rich can stand the higher prices from dollar devaluation?
It would be a perfectly orchestrated scenario for getting rid of the New Deal and the Great Society that use up money that could be spent on wars and bailouts and tax cuts for the rich.
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.
For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -– on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.
The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.
This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.
This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.
The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.
So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?
That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.
And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:
“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”
Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -– an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate.
Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.
Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.
Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.
If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.
For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.
So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.
First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.
But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.
This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.
Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.
I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.
Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?
They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.
The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.
America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”
History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.
That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth –- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
Michael Ratner: There is a North America-wide strategy to take away the right to mass protest
Global Corporate Banksters, Military Intelligence, CIA, FBI, NSA, and other alphabet agencies act in concert to squash dissent and free speech years before events. Look in the skies, US military helicopters are hovering over corporate bankster meetings and events, worldwide.
Use of the mass arrest strategy is only a preliminary step.
As America's empire spreads abroad, it becomes ever more the police state at home. The methods used for the suppression of foreigners by military force and violence are eventually mirrored in the "homeland." In an article last September 25 th titled "It Is Official: the US Is A Police State," author Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Treasury Secretary during the Reagan years, wrote, "'Violent extremism' is one of those undefined police state terms that will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. In this morning's FBI foray into the homes of American citizens of conscience it means antiwar activists, whose activities are equated with 'the material support of terrorism'..."
The FBI raids at home are reminiscent of U.S. military raids overseas. In Iraq, for instance, labor union offices were raided and rifled and labor leaders imprisoned by the Occupation forces. Their "crime" was to oppose sweetheart contract deals with private oil firms.
The vast U.S. prison system, which houses 2.4 million Americans, may be compared with the Gulag the U.S. has built abroad. America today is the World's Jailer. As Allan Uthman reported on AlterNet, in 2006 the Bush regime began building "detention centers" to warehouse inmates for unspecified "new programs" when the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million. What we do abroad, we do at home.
Adopting police state tactics on Americans the U.S. Empire first used on subjects abroad has a long history. When Filipinos rebelled against U.S. rule after their country was "liberated" from Spain, captured resistance fighters were subjected to water torture. Twenty years later, imprisoned American pacifists who opposed the Wilson administration's entry into World War One were hung by their hands, and had running hoses shoved in their faces.
In its editorial of July 25 th , The Nation magazine denounces America's use of "secret armies, covert operations...offshore torture centers, out-of-control armed corporations, runaway military spending, wars by fleets of robots, wars by assassination---and all the other features of the imperial presidency..."
The magazine has long sought to end these practices. It's still a great idea but now it's a tad late. The Reactionary Elite that runs America is powerful. Congress rubber-stamps President Obama's five wars of aggression abroad and enacts laws at home that scorch individual liberty. The result is the emergent police state.
The other day I watched people entering a bus station in Orlando, Florida, submit to a body scan by two security officers who had no probable cause whatever to search them. Americans boarding trains and planes now accept such scans routinely. In area after area, Americans are accepting violations of their privacy in the name of "national security" with hardly a murmur of dissent. The Bush regime created "watch"(75,000 names) and "no fly"(45,000 names) lists that restrict individuals' air travel--and those searched and/or stopped from flying can complain all they like because it won't do them any good.
Robert Johnson, an American citizen, Naomi Wolf reports in her book "The End of America"( Chelsea Green), described the humiliation factor of being strip searched when he attempted to board an airplane: "I had to take off my pants. I had to take off my sneakers, then I had to take off my socks. I was treated like a criminal." This has now become a commonplace ordeal for countless numbers of Americans. Even at the height of World War Two, such invasions of personal rights would have been unthinkable.
Fear of government, unlike anything I have ever known in my lifetime, appears widespread. How do I know people are fearful? Because many readers call me "courageous" (which I definitely am not) for challenging the government, revealing that theytruly do fear to speak out.
David Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law School, writes in The Nation that Congress last May reauthorized provisions of the misnamed "Patriot Act" that "permit the government to obtain 'roving' wiretaps without identifying the person or the phone to be tapped, (to)demand records from libraries and businesses without establishing any reason to believe the target is involved in criminal, much less terrorist, activity; and (to)use surveillance powers initially restricted to agents of foreign governments or terrorist organizations against 'lone wolves' not affiliated with any such group or government." This is an echo of the ECHELON system the U.S. and its British Commonwealth allies have employed since World War Two to eavesdrop on the entire planet, track dissenters, and steal business secrets.
Cole also writes Attorney General Eric Holder will now allow FBI agents "to rummage through citizens' trash, conduct searches of computer databases and repeatedly use surveillance squads to track people without any suspicion of individual wrongdoing or court approval." (Just like the body searches at the bus terminal.) The absence of court approval is significant in that a court is the only legal bulwark a citizen has against unbridled police power. And now that's gone. The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered far worse at the hands of American-led military.
The fact is, when the Empire goes to war, the life of its individual citizen is devalued and degraded---not only on the battlefield, where it is often sacrificed for all the wrong reasons, but at home as well. It's happening here. The right to form unions freely is scrapped in defiance of the vast majority of workers who want one. The public treasury is looted by Congress to bail out the bankers over the 100-to-one protests of constituents. Foreign wars are waged over the wishes of the popular majority who want them ended.
As liberty after liberty is being circumscribed or eliminated, the common man and woman are being reduced to the common serf. Harold Laski, a former chairman of the British Labor Party, once noted, "We live under a system by which the many are exploited by the few, and war is the ultimate sanction of that exploitation." Imperialism---whether practiced by Spain in the 16 th century, England in the 18 th century, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany in the 20 th century, or America today---is a gangrene that expands tyranny at home with the equivalent velocity that it spreads war abroad. #
(Sherwood Ross is director of the Anti-War News Service. He formerly worked as a columnist for daily newspapers and wire services.)
Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and contributed a regular "Workplace" column for Reuters. He has contributed to national magazines and hosted a talk show on WOL, Washington, D.C. In the Sixties he was active as public (more...)
* * * *
Steven G. Erickson's comment to above article posted to above Opednews.com article:
Government too big
Federal and State Employees make an average of 6 figures a year and have to work half as long as a worker in the private sector to get their cushy pensions. Former Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland took bribes from the Mafia to put as many children and adults in prison so, Mafia figures could build, run, and supply facilities getting paid Federal tax dollars. Dept of Children and Families was ramped up to use lies to officially kidnap as many kids as possible from good parents. Rowland got in a pissing contest with a bigger Mafia, judges, and ended up getting a year in prison.
After getting out of prison, Rowland bought a mansion and is living off a fat pension, crime does pay for insiders. A probation officer who is guilty of hundreds of counts of rape of the mentally ill and underage got probation and still gets a fat pension. While most of America faces starvation and homelessness, criminals gangs of federally and state paid "workers" abuse us for 6 figure salaries. Maybe more that one in 6 workers are on taxpayer payroll. We can't afford this massive organized crime and all out wars of aggression.
Paying taxes is illegal because it supports organized crime, state drug dealing, murder for hire, prostitution, and other rackets. The CIA and Pentagon funding should be cut by 50 percent at least and the government should go on a diet and be really under control with civilian oversight. We either do it now, or the world will be a corporate bankster police state.
stevengerickson at yahoo dot com
* * * *
Obama's latest speech sound like a campaign speech. Lie to us once, shame on you, lie to us again, and we listen, shame on us. When wasn't, or isn't US President Barack Obama not lying? Should this criminal scumbag pandering to corporate banksters be in prison, not the White House?
Armadebtdon looming while Obama and Boehner stand their ground
Obama and Boehner continue to stand their ground on possible solutions to resolve the economic crisis in our country. We are a week away from the deadline and if a deal is not reached how will this affect our country's credit rating? Heather Cirmo and Dan O' Connor give us an overview on the issues and possible solutions. Follow Kristine on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Frazzie
Tim DeChristopher infiltrated a public land auction in Utah for the sake of protesting against drilling for oil. The land was going to be purchased by oil and gas companies but DeChristoper ending up bidding on the land and winning many of the auctions. He was later convicted for making millions of dollars in false bids by a federal court. Kevin Zeese the director of ComeHomeAmerica.US explains why the sale of land to these companies was illegal.
People's Protest: DC's Freedom Plaza on October 6th
I grew up during World War II. My childhood was influenced by the roles my father played in his movies. Whether Abraham Lincoln or Tom Joad in the Grapes of Wrath, his characters communicated certain values which I try to carry with me to this day. I remember saying goodbye to my father the night he left to join the Navy. He didn't have to. He was older than other servicemen and had a family to support but he wanted to be a part of the fight against fascism, not just make movies about it. I admired this about him. I grew up with a deep belief that wherever our troops fought, they were on the side of the angels.
For the first eight years of the Vietnam War I lived in France. I was married to the French film director, Roger Vadim and had my first child. The French had been defeated in their own war against Vietnam a decade before our country went to war there, so when I heard, over and over, French people criticizing our country for our Vietnam War I hated it. I viewed it as sour grapes. I refused to believe we could be doing anything wrong there.
It wasn't until I began to meet American servicemen who had been in Vietnam and had come to Paris as resisters that I realized I needed to learn more. I took every chance I could to meet with U.S. soldiers. I talked with them and read the books they gave me about the war. I decided I needed to return to my country and join with them -- active duty soldiers and Vietnam Veterans in particular -- to try and end the war. I drove around the country visiting military bases, spending time in the G.I. Coffee houses that had sprung up outside many bases -- places where G.I.s could gather.
I met with Army psychiatrists who were concerned about the type of training our men were receiving " quite different, they said, from the trainings during WWII and Korea. The doctors felt this training was having a damaging effect on the psyches of the young men, effects they might not recover from. I raised money and hired a former Green Beret, Donald Duncan, to open and run the G.I. Office in Washington D.C. to try and get legal and congressional help for soldiers who were being denied their rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I talked for hours with U.S. pilots about their training, and what they were told about Vietnam. I met with the wives of servicemen. I visited V.A. hospitals. Later in 1978, wanting to share with other Americans some of what I had learned about the experiences of returning soldiers and their families, I made the movie Coming Home. I was the one who would be asked to speak at large anti-war rallies to tell people that the men in uniform were not the enemy, that they did not start the war, that they were, in growing numbers our allies.
I knew as much about military law as any layperson. I knew more than most civilians about the realities on the ground for men in combat. I lived and breathed this stuff for two years before I went to North Vietnam. I cared deeply for the men and boys who had been put in harm's way. I wanted to stop the killing and bring our servicemen home. I was infuriated as I learned just how much our soldiers were being lied to about why we were fighting in Vietnam and I was anguished each time I would be with a young man who was traumatized by his experiences. Some boys shook constantly and were unable to speak above a whisper.
It is unconscionable that extremist groups circulate letters which accuse me of horrific things, saying that I am a traitor, that POWs in Hanoi were tied up and in chains and marched passed me while I spat at them and called them "baby killers." These letters also say that when the POWs were brought into the room for a meeting I had with them, we shook hands and they passed me tiny slips of paper on which they had written their social security numbers. Supposedly, this was so that I could bring back proof to the U.S. military that they were alive. The story goes on to say that I handed these slips of paper over to the North Vietnamese guards and, as a result, at least one of the men was tortured to death.
That these stories could be given credence shows how little people know of the realities in North Vietnam prisons at the time. The U.S. government and the POW families didn't need me to tell them who the prisoners were. They had all their names. Moreover, according to even the most hard-core senior officers, torture stopped late in 1969, t wo and a half years before I got there. And, most importantly, I would never say such things to our servicemen, whom I respect, whether or not I agree with the mission they have been sent to perform, which is not of their choosing.
But these lies have circulated for almost 40 years, continually reopening the wound of the Vietnam War and causing pain to families of American servicemen. The lies distort the truth of why I went to North Vietnam and they perpetuate the myth that being anti-war means being anti-soldier.
Little known is the fact that almost 300 Americans -- journalists, diplomats, peace activists, professors, religious leaders and Vietnam Veterans themselves -- had been traveling to North Vietnam over a number of years in an effort to try and find ways to end the war (by the way, those trips generated little if any media attention.) I brought with me to Hanoi a thick package of letters from families of POWs. Since 1969, mail for the POWs had been brought in and out of North Vietnam every month by American visitors. The Committee of Liaison With Families coordinated this effort. I took the letters to the POWs and brought a packet of letters from them back to their families.
The Photo of Me on the Gun Site.
There is one thing that happened while in North Vietnam that I will regret to my dying day -- I allowed myself to be photographed on a Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. I want to, once again, explain how that came about. I have talked about this numerous times on national television and in my memoirs, My Life So Far, but clearly, it needs to be repeated.
It happened on my last day in Hanoi. I was exhausted and an emotional wreck after the two-week visit. It was not unusual for Americans who visited North Vietnam to be taken to see Vietnamese military installations and when they did, they were always required to wear a helmet like the kind I was told to wear during the numerous air raids I had experienced. When we arrived at the site of the anti-aircraft installation (somewhere on the outskirts of Hanoi), there was a group of about a dozen young soldiers in uniform who greeted me. There were also many photographers (and perhaps journalists) gathered about, many more than I had seen all in one place in Hanoi. This should have been a red flag.
The translator told me that the soldiers wanted to sing me a song. He translated as they sung. It was a song about the day "Uncle Ho" declared their country's independence in Hanoi's Ba Dinh Square. I heard these words: "All men are created equal; they are given certain rights; among these are life, Liberty and Happiness." These are the words Ho pronounced at the historic ceremony. I began to cry and clap. These young men should not be our enemy. They celebrate the same words Americans do.
The soldiers asked me to sing for them in return. As it turned out I was prepared for just such a moment: before leaving the United States, I memorized a song called Day Ma Di, written by anti-war South Vietnamese students. I knew I was slaughtering it, but everyone seemed delighted that I was making the attempt. I finished. Everyone was laughing and clapping, including me, overcome on this, my last day, with all that I had experienced during my two-week visit. What happened next was something I have turned over and over in my mind countless times.
Here is my best, honest recollection of what happened: someone (I don't remember who) led me towards the gun, and I sat down, still laughing, still applauding. It all had nothing to do with where I was sitting. I hardly even thought about where I was sitting. The cameras flashed. I got up, and as I started to walk back to the car with the translator, the implication of what had just happened hit me. "Oh my God. It's going to look like I was trying to shoot down U.S. planes." I pleaded with him, "You have to be sure those photographs are not published. Please, you can't let them be published." I was assured it would be taken care of. I didn't know what else to do. (I didn't know yet that among the photographers there were some Japanese.)
It is possible that it was a set up, that the Vietnamese had it all planned. I will never know. But if they did I can't blame them. The buck stops here. If I was used, I allowed it to happen. It was my mistake and I have paid and continue to pay a heavy price for it. Had I brought a politically more experienced traveling companion with me they would have kept me from taking that terrible seat. I would have known two minutes before sitting down what I didn't realize until two minutes afterwards; a two-minute lapse of sanity that will haunt me forever. The gun was inactive, there were no planes overhead, I simply wasn't thinking about what I was doing, only about what I was feeling, innocent of what the photo implies. But the photo exists, delivering its message regardless of what I was doing or feeling. I carry this heavy in my heart. I have apologized numerous times for any pain I may have caused servicemen and their families because of this photograph. It was never my intention to cause harm. It is certainly painful for me that I, who had spent so much time talking to soldiers, trying to help soldiers and veterans, helping the anti-war movement to not blame the soldiers, now would be seen as being against our soldiers!
So Why I Did I Go?
On May 8, 1972, President Nixon had ordered underwater, explosive mines to be placed in Haiphong Harbor, something that had been rejected by previous administrations. Later that same month, reports began to come in from European scientists and diplomats that the dikes of the Red River Delta in North Vietnam were being targeted by U.S. planes. The Swedish ambassador to Vietnam reported to an American delegation in Hanoi that he had at first believed the bombing was accidental, but now, having seen the dikes with his own eyes, he was convinced it was deliberate.
I might have missed the significance of these reports had Tom Hayden, whom I was dating, not shown me what the recently released Pentagon Papers had to say on the subject: in 1966, Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton, searching for some new means to bring Hanoi to its knees, had proposed destroying North Vietnam's system of dams and dikes, which, he said, "If handled right -- might " offer promise " such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after a time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided -- which we could offer to do at the conference table."  President Johnson, to his credit, had not acted upon this option.
Now, six years later, Richard Nixon appeared to have given orders to target the dikes -- whether to actually destroy them  or to demonstrate the threat of destruction, no one knew.
It is important to understand that the Red River is the largest river in North Vietnam. Like Holland, its delta is below sea level. Over centuries, the Vietnamese people have constructed -- by hand! -- an intricate network of earthen dikes and dams to hold back the sea, a network 2,500 miles long! The stability of these dikes becomes especially critical as monsoon season approaches, and requires an all-out effort on the part of citizens to repair any damage from burrowing animals or from normal wear and tear. Now it was June, but this was no "normal wear and tear" they were facing. The Red River would begin to rise in July and August. Should there be flooding, the mining of Haiphong Harbor would prevent any food from being imported; the bombing showed no signs of letting up; and there was little press coverage of the impending disaster should the dikes be weakened by the bombing and give way. Something drastic had to be done.
The Nixon Administration and its US Ambassador to the United Nations, George Bush (the father), would vehemently deny what was happening, but the following are excerpts from the April-May 1972 transcripts of conversations between President Nixon and top administration officials.
April 25th 1972
Nixon: "We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack [of North Vietnam] " Now, by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond"I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, of the docks."
Kissinger: "I agree with you."
President Nixon: "And I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?"
Kissinger: "About two hundred thousand people."
President Nixon: "No, no, no"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: "That, I think, would just be too much."
President Nixon: "The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? " I just want to think big, Henry, for Christsakes."
May 4, 1972. 
John B. Connally (Secretary of the Treasury): " "bomb for seriousness, not just as a signal. Railroads, ports, power stations, communication lines " and don't worry about killing civilians. Go ahead and kill "em " People think you are [killing civilians] now. So go ahead and give "em some."
Richard Nixon: "That's right."
[Later in same conversation]
Richard Nixon: "We need to win the goddamned war " and " what that fella [?] said about taking out the goddamned dikes, all right, we'll take out the goddamned dikes " If Henry's for that, I'm for it all the way."
The administration wanted the American public to believe Nixon was winding down the war because he was bringing our ground troops home. (At the time I went to Hanoi, there were only approximately 25,000 troops left in South Vietnam from a high of 540,000 in early 1969) In fact, the war was escalating " from the air. And, as I said, monsoon season was approaching. Something drastic had to be done.
That May, I received an invitation from the North Vietnamese in Paris to make the trip to Hanoi. Many had gone before me but perhaps it would take a different sort of celebrity to get people's attention. Heightened public attention was what was needed to confront the impending crisis with the dikes. I would take a camera and bring back photographic evidence (if such was to be found) of the bomb damage of the dikes we'd been hearing about.
I arranged the trip's logistics through the Vietnamese delegation at the Paris Peace talks, bought myself a round trip ticket and stopped in New York to pick up letters for the POWs.
Frankly, the trip felt like a call to service. It was a humanitarian mission, not a political trip. My goal was to expose and try to halt the bombing of the dikes. (The bombing of the dikes ended a month after my return from Hanoi)
The only problem was that I went alone. Had I been with a more experienced, clear-headed, traveling companion, I would not have allowed myself to get into a situation where I was photographed on an anti-aircraft gun.
My trip to North Vietnam never became a big story in the Summer/Fall of 1972 -- nothing on television, one small article in the New York Times. The majority of the American public, Congress, and the media were opposed to the war by then and they didn't seem to take much notice of my trip. After all, as I said, almost 300 Americans had gone to Hanoi before me. There had been more than 80 broadcasts by Americans over Radio Hanoi before I made mine. I had decided to do the broadcasts because I was so horrified by the bombing of civilian targets and I wanted to speak to U.S. pilots as I had done on so many occasions during my visits to U.S. military bases and at G.I. Coffee houses. I never asked pilots to desert. I wanted to tell them what I was seeing as an American on the ground there. The Nixon Justice Department poured over the transcripts of my broadcasts trying to find a way to put me on trial for treason but they could find none. A. William Olson, a representative of the Justice Department,  said after studying the transcripts, that I had asked the military "to do nothing other than to think."
But from the Nixon Administration's point of view, something had to be done. If the government couldn't prosecute me in court because, in reality, I had broken no laws, then the pro-war advocates would make sure I was prosecuted in the court of public opinion.
The myth-making about my being responsible for POW torture began seven months after I returned from North Vietnam, and several months after the war had ended, and the U.S. POWs had returned home. "Operation Homecoming," in February 1973, was planned by the Pentagon and orchestrated by the White House. It was unprecedented in its lavishness. I was outraged that there had been no homecoming celebrations for the tens of thousands of men who had done combat. But from 1969 until their release in 1973, Nixon had made sure that the central issue of the war for many Americans was about the torture of American POWs (the very same years when the torture had stopped!). He had to seize the opportunity to create something that resembled victory. It was as close as he would come, and the POWs were the perfect vehicles to deflect the nation's attention away from what our government had done in Vietnam; how they had broken faith with our servicemen.
I became a target the government could use, to suggest that some POWs who had met with me while I was in Hanoi had been tortured into pretending they were anti-war. The same thing was done to try and frame former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, whose trip to North Vietnam followed mine.
According to Seymour Hersh, author and journalist who uncovered the My Lai massacre and, later, the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, when American families of POWs became alarmed at the news that there was torture in North Vietnam prisons, they received letters from the Pentagon saying: "We are certain that you will not become unduly concerned over the [torture] briefing if you keep in mind the purpose for which it was tailored." 
But, according to what the POWs wrote in their books, conditions in the POW camps improved in the four years preceding their release -- that is, from 1969 until 1973. Upon their release, Newsweek magazine wrote, "the [torture] stories seemed incongruent with the men telling them -- a trim, trig [note: this is actually the word used in the article] lot who, given a few pounds more flesh, might have stepped right out of a recruiting poster." 
Once the POWs were home, the Pentagon and White House handpicked a group of the highest ranking POWs -- senior officers, to travel the national media circuit, some of them telling of torture. A handwritten note from President Nixon to H.R. Haldeman says that "the POW's need to have the worst quotes of R. Clark and Fonda" to use in their TV appearances, but this information shouldn't come from the White House.  These media stories were allowed to become the official narrative, the universal "POW Story," giving the impression that all the men had been subjected to systematic torture -- right up to the end -- and that torture was the policy of the North Vietnamese government. The POWs who said there was no torture in their camps were never allowed access to the media.
Not that any torture is justified or that anyone who had been tortured should have been prevented from telling about it. But the Nixon White House orchestrated a distorted picture of what actually occurred.
In my anger at the torture story that was being allowed to spread; at how the entire situation was being manipulated, I made a mistake I deeply regret. I said that the POWs claiming torture were liars, hypocrites, and pawns.
I said, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture " but the pilots who are saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie." 
What I didn't know at the time was that although there had been no torture after 1969, before then there had been systematic torture of some POWS. One of the more hawkish of them, James Stockdale, wrote in his book, In Love and War, that no more than 10 percent of the pilots received at least 90 percent of the punishment.  John Hubbell, in P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-of-War Experience in Vietnam, agreed, and affirmed the fact that torture stopped in 1969. 
When the POWs came home, some who had been there longest told the press how they clogged up prison toilets and sewers, refused to come when ordered, or follow prison rules. One of the most famous, Jeremiah Denton, said, "We forced them [the guards] to be brutal to us."  I relay this not to minimize the hardships that the POWs endured, nor to excuse it -- but to attempt belatedly to restore a greater depth of insight into the entire POW experience with their captors.
Still, whether any torture was administered to certain, more recalcitrant POWs and not to others is unacceptable. Even though only a small percent of prisoners were tortured by U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, it wasn't right. According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's standards, torturing prisoners to get information is justified. It isn't. Not ever. All nations must adhere to the Geneva Convention's rules of warfare.
As anyone who knew or worked with me in those years knows that my heart has always been with the soldiers. I should have been clearer that my anger back then was at the Nixon Administration. It was the administration, in its cynical determination to keep hostilities between the U.S. and Vietnam alive and to distract people from the administration's mistakes, who tried to use the POWs as pawns.
Addressing The Internet lies
By the end of the Nineties, even more grotesque torture lies began to be circulated about me over the Internet -- the ones that continue to this day.
Let me quote a former POW, Captain Mike McGrath (USN Retired), president of the POW-NAM Organization. In a letter to Roger Friedman, at the time a columnist for Fox411, on Friday, January 12, 2001 (he gave Friedman permission to make the letter public) McGrath wrote:
"Yes, the Carrigan/Driscoll/strips of paper story is an Internet hoax. It has been around since Nov 1999 or so. To the best of my knowledge none of this ever happened. This is a hoax story placed on the Internet by unknown Fonda haters. No one knows who initiated the story. I have spoken with all the parties named: Carrigan, Driscoll, et al. They all state that this particular story is a hoax and wish to disassociate their names from the false story. They never made the statements attributed to them."
In his letter, McGrath also said to Friedman that by the time I went to Hanoi in 1972, treatment of the POWs was starting to improve and that I "did not bring torture or abuse to the POWs," but that one man [Hoffman], the "senior ranking man in a room full of new guys," was tortured ("hung by his broken arm") to make him come to the meeting with me. McGrath wrote:
Why one man (name withheld by request) was picked out for torture of his broken arm is unknown"
The answer is, it never happened!
Will what I have written here stop the myths from continuing to be spread on the Internet and in mass mailings to conservative Republicans? I don't know. Some people seem to need to hate and I make a convenient lightning rod. I think the lies and distortions serve some right-wing purpose -- fundraising? Demonizing me so as to scare others from becoming out-spoken anti-war activists? Who knows? But at least here, on my blog (and in my memoirs), there is a place where people who are genuinely interested in the truth can find it.
 PP Vol. 1V, p. 43 (Italics in the original)
 As Hitler had done to the Netherlands during World War II. German High Commissioner Seyss-Inquart was condemned to death at Nuremberg for opening the dikes in Holland.
 Oval Office Conversation No. 719-22, May 4, 1972; Nixon White House Tapes; National Archives at College Park, College Park MD
Hearings before the Committee on Internal Security, House of Representatives, 92 Congress, Second Session, Sept. 10 & 25th, 1972 (Washington: Government Printing Office): 7552
 Hersh, The P.O.W. Issue: A National Issue is Born, Dayton (Ohio) Journal-Herald, 13-18 Feb 1971
 Newsweek, 4/16/73
 Nixon Presidential Materials Staff, White House Special Files: Staff Mamber & Office Files: H.R. Haldeman: Box 47: Folder: H. Notes Jan-Feb-Mar 1973 National Archives
 NYT, 7 April 1973,11
In Love and War, p.447
P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-of-War Experience in Vietnam, John G. Hubbell, 91,430
Jane Fonda is an American actress, writer, political activist, former fashion model, and fitness guru. She rose to fame in the 1960s with films such as Barbarella and Cat Ballou. She has won two Academy Awards and received several other movie awards (more...)
* * * *
Steven G. Erickson's comment to Jane Fonda's article posted on Opednews.com:
Jane, it took courage and caring to do what you did during the Vietnam War. It turns out you were right. Maybe less than 1 in 100,000 stands up for themselves, and others, in the face of pure evil and being ruined yourself for your noble efforts. Thank you for your efforts then, thanks for posting this piece.
I have a documentary producer friend in Fairfield Connecticut and NYC college age actors and actresses to put out the truth with. Two of my friends, a retired Hartford Narcotics Detective, Rich Murzin, and AJ Fontaine passed away a week apart of natural causes weeks before we were to expose Department of Children and Families of running interference for organized crime drug dealing and the trafficking of young women with collusion of police and the courts on public access television, in a documentary, and in a fictionalized film.
I re-posted your article here on my blog. There is a much bigger fight, and much bigger enemy, our own government, now, as compared to the Vietnam era. We need more people like you more than ever to stand with the few of us who state their names and say what we think.
stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com
Steven G. Erickson at the NCMR Free Press Event, Minneapolis, Minnesota 2008:
Jane Fonda (born Lady Jayne Seymour Fonda, December 21, 1937) is an American actress, writer, political activist, former fashion model, and fitnessguru. She rose to fame in the 1960s with films such as Barbarella and Cat Ballou. She has won two Academy Awardsand received several other awards and nominations. After 15 years of retirement, she returned to film in 2005 with Monster in Law followed by Georgia Rule two years later. She also produced and starred in over 20 exercise videos released between 1982 and 1995, and once again in 2010.
Fonda has been an activist for many political causes, one of the most notable and controversial of which was her opposition to the Vietnam War. She has also protested the Iraq War and violence against women. She describes herself as a liberal and a feminist. In 2005, Fonda worked alongside Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem to co-found the Women's Media Center, an organization that works to amplify the voices of women in the media through advocacy, media and leadership training, and the creation of original content. Fonda currently serves on the board of the organizati